Division  BX?3?2 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/francisasburyinmOOcarr 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 
at  Age  of  Sixty- three 


Francis  Asbury  in  the 
Making  of  American 
Methodism 

- 1  p$i i 

( &  bin}  l  o 
\*  v(  *V  c?  Li? 

/  By 

H.  K.  CARROLL,  LL.D. 


THE  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN 
NEW  YORK 


CINCINNATI 


CO 


Copyright,  1923,  by 
H.  K.  CARROLL 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 


TO  THE  HUMBLE  ITINERANT 


WHO,  LIKE  FRANCIS  ASBURY,  TRAVELED 
WIDE  CIRCUITS  ON  HORSEBACK,  OVER 
WOODLAND  PATHS,  MOUNTAIN  TRAILS, 
AND  ROUGH  HIGHWAYS,  ON  THE  HEELS 
OF  PIONEER  SETTLERS,  TO  OFFER  THE 
GOSPEL  OF  CHRIST  AS  A  REGENERATING 
POWER  IN  THE  HUMAN  HEART,  A  BIND¬ 
ING  FORCE  IN  THE  FAMILY,  AN  INCEN¬ 
TIVE  IN  THE  COMMUNITY  TO  OBEY  THE 
LAWS  OF  GOD  AND  MAN,  AND  A  GUIDING 
MOTIVE  IN  THE  NATION  TO  SEEK  THE 
BLESSINGS  OF  CHRISTIAN  CIVILIZATION, 
THIS  VOLUME  IS  AFFECTIONATELY  IN¬ 
SCRIBED  BY  THE  AUTHOR. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

I.  Why  a  Monument  to  Francis  Asbury?.  9 

II.  His  Birth  and  Early  Training .  13 

III.  Methodism  in  the  Formative  Stage.  .  .  26 

IV.  As  a  Series  of  Societies .  42 

V.  Its  Doctrinal  Teaching .  61 

VI.  How  the  Itinerancy  was  Established .  .  72 

VII.  Other  Denominations  in  America.  ...  92 

VIII.  Manner  of  Asbury’s  Daily  Life .  103 

IX.  Asbury  as  a  Preacher .  114 

X.  The  Organizing  Conference .  130 

XI.  As  a  Projector  of  Church  Institutions.  141 

XII.  His  Governing  Capacity .  158 

XIII.  Early  Methodists  and  Education.  .  .  .  174 

XIV.  Influence  of  Methodism  on  the  Na¬ 

tional  Life .  189 

XV.  Divisions  of  Methodism .  206 

XVI.  Asbury’s  Last  Year .  227 

Appendix.  A  Chapter  of  Numbers.  .  237 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


Francis  Asbury  at  the  Age  of  63.  From  portrait 

painted  by  Bruff  in  1808  in  Baltimore . Frontispiece 

FACING  PAGE 

Bronze  Equestrian  Group,  by  Augustus  Lukeman, 
sculptor .  10 

Site  of  Asbury  Monument,  Columbia  Road  and  Mt. 
Pleasant  Street,  Washington,  D.  C .  22 

Fac-simile  of  Title  Page  of  First  Discipline .  28 

First  John  Street  Church,  built  by  Philip  Embury,  in 
1768 .  36 

Log  Meeting  House,  built  by  Robert  Strawbridge,  at 
Sams  Creek,  the  first  in  Maryland .  58 

Fac-simile  of  Minutes  of  First  Conference,  1773 .  76 

Barratt’s  Chapel  in  Delaware,  where  Asbury  and  Coke 
first  met .  132 

Lovely  Lane  Meeting  House,  where  the  Christmas 
Conference  met .  138 


CHAPTER  I 


WHY  A  MONUMENT  TO 
FRANCIS  ASBURY? 


WHAT  manner  of  man  was  Francis  Asbury 
and  what  was  the  quality  of  his  work 
to  deserve  a  monument?  This  honor  is 
given  sparingly  in  this  day  of  great  discoveries, 
great  inventions,  and  great  achievements,  and  yet 
no  one  questions  the  fitness  of  setting  up  a  me¬ 
morial  to  this  man. 

The  coming  of  Francis  Asbury  to  America 
must  have  seemed  an  insignificant  event  at  the 
time.  He  was  appointed  by  John  Wesley  as  a 
missionary,  but  he  was  not  the  first,  nor  the 
chief.  Joseph  Pilmoor  and  Richard  Boardman 
had  been  here  two  years  when  he  came.  He  was 
called  an  “assistant”  and  was  not  appointed 
“General  Assistant”  to  Wesley  until  1783,  twelve 
years  after  his  arrival  at  Philadelphia.  There 
was  nothing  in  his  personal  appearance  or  known 
qualities  to  attract  attention.  A  youth  without 
education,  except  of  a  primitive  kind;  without 
knowledge  of  the  original  tongues  of  the  Bible, 
or  of  theological  science;  without  even  ministerial 
orders,  or  training  therefor,  except  in  the  school 
of  a  brief  circuit  experience,  and  apparently  with- 

9 


FRANCIS  ASBITRY 


out  other  preparation  for  the  work  of  a  preacher 
and  leader,  he  seemed  the  least  likely  of  any  of 
the  early  missionaries  sent  by  Wesley  to  the 
American  colonies  to  do  a  service  for  humanity 
that  a  subsequent  age  would  gladly  recognize. 
He  had  been  for  some  years  a  local  preacher  in 
England,  and  as  a  local  preacher  he  came  to 
America.  Writing  thirty  years  later  of  this 
experience,  he  says,  “I  was  exceedingly  ignorant 
of  almost  everything  a  minister  of  the  gospel 
ought  to  know.” 

Nor  was  he  equipped  with  the  robust  health 
generally  thought  necessary  to  the  life  of  a  pioneer 
in  a  wilderness.  Apparently  undernourished  and 
of  underweight,  he  suffered  from  sickness  on  his 
long  sea- journey  and  his  Journal  of  his  American 
experiences,  on  almost  every  page,  tells  of  head¬ 
aches  and  pains  and  illnesses,  and  yet  he  so 
wrought,  despite  the  pains  and  penalties  of  bod¬ 
ily  weakness  and  ailments ;  and  he  bore  so 
patiently  the  troubles  and  trials  which  beset 
him,  and  the  criticisms  and  misrepresentations 
which  met  him  at  every  turn,  that  it  must  be 
conceded  that  he  achieved  the  purpose  of  God 
in  his  coming  to  America.  The  innumerable  hosts 
of  Methodism  acclaim  him  as  father  and  founder 
and  as  worthy  of  honor. 

We  must  conclude  that  with  the  simple  pur¬ 
pose  with  which  he  came  to  America  ever  before 

10 


BRONZE  EQUESTRIAN  GROUP 
By  Augustus  Lukeman,  Sculptor 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


him,  his  absolute  reliance  on  God’s  leadership 
was  the  hiding  of  his  power.  On  his  journey 
hither,  which  he  was  never  to  retrace,  although 
he  left  behind  father  and  mother,  the  dearest 
friends  and  the  only  home  he  was  ever  to  know, 
he  wrote  in  his  Journal ,  these  very  simple  sen¬ 
tences:  “Whither  am  I  going?  To  the  New  World. 
What  to  do — to  gain  honor?  No,  if  I  know  my 
own  heart.  To  get  money?  No.  I  am  going  to 
live  to  God  and  to  bring  others  so  to  do.” 

Quite  commonplace  and  unimpressive  words 
they  seem,  with  little  evidence  of  feeling,  or 
inspiration,  and  scarcely  of  ordinary  interest. 
But  study  them  a  little  and  you  see  in  them 
the  dominating  force  of  a  great  purpose.  In 
those  days  men  came  to  America  either  to  get 
money,  win  honor,  or  seek  adventure.  None  of 
these  aims  was  in  the  mind  of  Francis  Asbury. 
Something  of  far  greater  consequence  was  his 
impelling  motive:  “I  go  to  the  New  World  to  live 
to  God  and  to  bring  others  so  to  do.”  He  could 
have  lived  to  God  in  England  and  brought  others 
so  to  do,  but  he  recognized  in  the  New  World  a 
greater  need  and  a  greater  opportunity.  A  new 
movement  had  begun  in  England,  a  movement 
which  had  been  owned  of  God  and  which  had 
the  purest  doctrines  and  best  discipline  known 
to  him.  As  God  had  greatly  blessed  them  in  the 
three  kingdoms,  he  argued,  they  must  be  pleasing 

11 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


to  him.  The  new  land  was  a  land  of  need  and 
promise.  “If  God  does  not  acknowledge  me  in 
America,  I  will  soon  return  to  England.”  He 
never  returned.  He  came  an  Englishman,  he 
became  an  American,  and  gave  his  life,  rich  in 
devotion  and  sacrificial  service,  to  the  country 
of  his  adoption. 

“To  live  to  God  and  to  bring  others  so  to  do” 
— such  quiet  words,  with  no  stir  of  feeling,  or 
touch  of  imagination,  or  kindling  of  inspiration. 
Plain  and  unattractive,  like  Paul’s  “patient 
continuance  in  well-doing,”  by  which,  common¬ 
place  as  they  seem,  God  said  the  crown  of  “eternal 
life”  is  to  be  won.  “Patient  continuance  in  well¬ 
doing,”  ever  present  in  the  mind  of  the  Apostle 
to  the  Gentiles,  must  also  have  been  constantly 
in  the  thought  of  Francis,  the  Apostle  to  the 
Americans,  for  that  was  the  rule  of  his  life.  Pa¬ 
tience  under  trials  and  disappointments;  patience 
in  sickness  and  suffering,  patience  in  the  weari¬ 
ness  and  discomforts  of  travel;  patience  as  a 
guest,  whether  welcome  or  unwelcome,  well  served 
or  ill  served;  patience  under  tribulation,  depriva¬ 
tion,  criticism,  misunderstanding,  misrepresenta¬ 
tion;  patience  under  the  discouragements  which 
beset  him  daily.  He  was  ever  learning  in  the 
school  of  patience  the  lessons  God  teaches  to 
those  whom  he  would  prepare  for  intimate  fel¬ 
lowship  with  himself. 


12 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


CHAPTER  II 

HIS  BIRTH  AND  EARLY  TRAINING 

HE  preparation  for  English  Methodism 
was  made  in  Oxford  University  and  in  a 
beautiful  family  life.  John  and  Charles 
Wesley,  George  Whitefield,  Thomas  Coke  were 
fitted  for  their  great  work  by  home  and  univer¬ 
sity  training.  Two  of  this  eminent  band  came  to 
America  on  tours,  and  both  were  accomplished 
preachers.  Why  did  not  God  select  Whitefield 
or  Coke  to  be  the  leader  and  organizer  of  Amer¬ 
ican  Methodism?  No  man  ever  had  so  large 
and  eager  a  hearing  in  the  New  World  as  George 
Whitefield,  or  was  equipped  with  a  more  winning 
and  persuasive  manner.  All  denominations  wel¬ 
comed  him.  But  he  was  a  voice  and  not  an 
organizer.  His  leadership  in  England  of  Calvin- 
istic  Methodism  had  limited  results.  The  Lady 
Huntingdon  Connection  has  only  a  history  to 
speak  for  it.  The  Welsh  Calvinistic  body  remains, 
however,  with  its  evangelistic  spirit  as  a  dis¬ 
tinguishing  feature.  Thomas  Coke  had  larger 
qualities  as  an  organizer  than  Whitefield,  was 
an  able  preacher,  and  had  independent  means 
sufficient  for  his  own  support;  but  his  was  not 

13 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


the  clarion  call  to  which  the  inchoate  forces  of 
American  Methodism  were  to  respond  and  it  was 
not  his  considerable  personality  that  the  preachers 
were  to  acknowledge.  Providence  had  in  reserve 
a  man  humbler  in  attainments  and  popular  qual¬ 
ities  than  either  of  these  eminent  preachers  to 
marshal  the  hidden  hosts  of  the  New  World  in 
conflict  with  the  enemies  of  God  and  man. 

It  surely  was  no  accident  in  God’s  plans  for 
the  great  nation  soon  to  be  born  in  the  English 
colonies  that  an  obscure  young  man,  who  had 
never  entered  Oxford  for  that  preparation  which 
doubles  the  power  of  most  men,  was  selected  to 
create  practically  American  Methodism.  God 
does  not  work  by  accident,  but  by  wise  and 
effective  plans.  He  took  a  keeper  of  flocks  in 
Midian,  who  was  also  a  learned  man,  to  bring 
about  the  emancipation  of  Israel  in  Egypt;  a 
keeper  of  sheep  in  Canaan  to  be  king  of  a  pros¬ 
perous  nation;  a  dweller  in  the  wilderness  to  face 
a  wicked  king  and  a  more  wicked  queen;  an 
unlearned  fisherman  to  issue  the  challenge  of  the 
gospel  to  the  autocratic  Sanhedrin,  and  a  perse¬ 
cuting  Pharisee  to  become  the  Apostle  to  the 
Gentiles.  And  the  result  in  every  case  answered 
to  the  wisdom  of  the  appointment. 

The.  man  selected  for  leadership  of  the  feeble 
Methodist  societies  in  America,  as  yet  without 
much  promise,  Francis  Asbury,  was  born  of  good 

14 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


pure  English  blood  in  the  good  pure  atmosphere 
of  agricultural  England,  in  the  parish  of  Hands- 
worth,  four  miles  from  Birmingham.  It  was  a 
quiet  orderly  community  in  which  the  grosser 
forms  of  vice  and  wickedness  had  not  developed 
and  where  the  influence  of  religion  still  prevailed. 
The  yeoman  stock  to  which  Joseph  and  Elizabeth 
Asbury  belonged  is  good,  clean,  healthy  stock, 
and  those  who  spring  from  it  are  likely  to  have 
the  inestimable  blessing  of  being  well  born,  a 
great  advantage  at  the  start  of  life’s  career. 

The  boyhood  days  of  Francis  (he  was  born 
August  20,  1745),  if  uneventful,  were  happy  in 
a  serene  home  life  with  conscientious,  devoted 
parents,  and  in  such  mixed  associations  as  a  quiet 
country  place  affords.  His  account  of  himself 
indicates  that  the  boy  did  not  yield  to  the  tempta¬ 
tions  to  wickedness  which  can  be  found  every¬ 
where.  It  was  a  great  thing  for  him  to  be  able 
to  say  in  manhood  that  he  had  “neither  dared 
an  oath,  nor  hazarded  a  lie”;  that  though  the  love 
of  truth  is  not  natural,  he  had  been  so  well  taught 
that  he  early  acquired  the  habit  of  truthfulness, 
and  his  conscience  would  not  let  him  swear.  His 
parents  gave  him  a  prayer  to  say,  and  while  his 
father  did  not  establish  family  worship,  they 
were  all  fond  of  singing  and  united  often  in 
praise.  He  knew  boys  who  had  become  wicked, 
but  he  never  quite  came  under  their  influence, 

15 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


returning  home  from  their  company  with  de¬ 
pressed  spirit,  hating  the  evil,  but  not  always 
able  to  avoid  contact  with  it.  The  influence  of 
such  an  honest,  conscientious,  wholesome  house¬ 
hold  is  a  boon  to  anyone.  A  boy  is  apt  to  be 
shaped  for  life  in  such  an  atmosphere,  and  well 
shaped.  His  school  life  began  early,  and  he 
formed  the  habit  of  reading  the  Bible,  the  stories 
of  which  had  a  fascination  for  him. 

His  father  was  a  gardener  and  had  a  good 
income,  so  that  the  family  never  suffered  from 
actual  need.  With  neither  riches  nor  poverty 
they  occupied  that  middle  position  which  means 
comfort  and  contentment.  Francis  could  have 
remained  at  school  a  long  time;  but  the  master 
was  a  churl  and  used  to  beat  him  cruelly,  so  that 
at  last  he  could  not  face  “the  horrible  dread,” 
and  went  to  live  in  a  family  which  was  wealthy 
but  ungodly.  Returning  home,  he  chose,  when 
thirteen  and  a  half  years  old,  to  learn  a  trade 
and  was  an  apprentice  till  twenty  and  had  a 
happy  life  in  his  employer’s  family.  While  he 
was  still  at  home  a  pious  man,  not  a  Methodist, 
visited  his  parents  and  talked  about  religion, 
and  prayed,  and  under  this  influence  the  boy 
was  awakened  before  he  was  fourteen  years  of 
age,  and  formed  the  habit  of  praying  night  and 
morning.  He  ceased  to  attend  the  parish  church, 
the  pastor  of  which  was  a  blind  guide,  and  went 

16 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


to  West  Bromwich  Church,  where  he  heard 
Ryland,  Stillingfleet,  Talbot,  Venn,  and  other 
great  preachers.  He  also  read  the  sermons  of 
Whitefield  and  Cennick,  and  he  asked  his  mother 
about  the  Methodists,  and  she  told  him  and  sent 
him  to  Wednesbury,  where  he  saw  and  heard 
them  and  was  pleased  with  their  deep  devotional 
spirit,  with  their  singing,  and  their  informality. 
“The  preacher  had  no  prayer-book,  and  yet  he 
prayed  wonderfully,”  and  he  had  “no  sermon- 
book.”  It  was  “a  strange  w^ay,  but  the  best 
way.”  The  boy  “had  no  deep  convictions”  but 
he  “had  committed  no  deep  known  sins.”  He  was 
sorry  he  could  not  weep,  for  he  knew  he  was  in 
a  state  of  unbelief.  Later  in  his  father’s  barn 
he  was  conscious  that  the  Lord  pardoned  his  sins 
and  justified  his  soul;  but  his  companions  led 
him  to  doubt  this.  He  attended  meetings  at 
various  houses  and  joined  a  class,  but  persecution 
came  and  closed  these  places.  Then  he  held 
services  at  his  father’s  house  and  other  places 
and  exhorted  the  people,  several  professing  con¬ 
version.  This  was  before  he  appeared  in  Meth¬ 
odist  meeting  houses. 

Then  he  became  a  local  preacher,  under  the 
direction  of  the  itinerants,  holding  services  far 
and  near  four  or  five  times  a  week.  After  serving 
about  five  years  in  this  capacity  he  gave  his  whole 
time  to  the  work.  He  had,  he  says,  a  clear  wit- 

17 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


ness  of  his  acceptance  with  God,  who  showed 
him  the  evil  of  his  heart.  He  enjoyed  for  a  while, 
as  he  believed,  the  “perfect  love  of  God,”  but 
this  happy  frame  did  not  continue,  although  at 
seasons  he  was  greatly  blessed.  As  an  itinerant 
he  was  much  tempted,  finding  himself  “exceed¬ 
ingly  ignorant  of  almost  everything  a  minister 
of  the  gospel  ought  to  know.” 

How  he  came  to  offer  himself  as  a  missionary 
to  America  he  does  not  very  clearly  indicate. 
He  says  it  was  in  his  mind  during  the  first  half 
of  1771.  He  had  a  strong  feeling  that  he  should 
offer  himself  for  this  service,  but  he  does  not 
say  what  caused  it.  Doubtless  he  had  heard  of 
the  conditions  in  the  colonies  through  letters 
from  Captain  Webb,  Richard  Boardman,  and 
Joseph  Pilmoor,  and  he  speaks  of  “very  great” 
trials  he  was  enduring  which  he  interpreted  as 
a  part  of  God’s  preparation  “for  future  usefulness.” 
At  any  rate,  when  he  heard  the  call  for  men  at 
the  Bristol  Conference  in  August,  1771,  he  writes, 
“I  spoke  my  mind.”  He  offered  himself,  and 
was  accepted,  having  made  a  good  record  as  an 
itinerant,  being  in  young  and  buoyant  manhood, 
everybody  apparently  approving.  He  broke  the 
unwelcome  news  of  his  appointment  to  his  par¬ 
ents  as  gently  as  possible,  and  though  it  was 
“grievous  to  flesh  and  blood,”  they  consented 
to  let  him  go.  He  believed  his  mother,  “one  of 

18 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


the  tenderest  parents  in  the  world,”  had  divine 
assistance  in  reconciling  herself  to  his  departure. 

In  three  weeks’  time  he  was  ready  to  sail,  but 
arrived  at  the  port  near  Bristol  with  “not  one 
penny  of  money,”  with  no  bedding  except  blankets, 
and  apparently  little  idea  what  he  would  need 
on  the  long  passage.  But  friends  supplied  him 
with  clothes  and  ten  pounds,  and  with  his  com¬ 
panion,  Richard  Wright,  he  sailed  September  4. 
What  faith  he  had  in  Divine  Providence,  how 
sure  he  was  that  he  was  obeying  the  call  of  God! 
How  slight  the  training  and  preparation,  from  the 
human  point  of  view,  did  this  simple-minded 
youth  have  for  his  task  of  capturing  the  New 
World  for  God!  “I  go,”  he  wrote  on  shipboard, 
“to  live  to  God  and  to  bring  others  so  to  do.” 
How  simple,  how  childlike,  how  modest,  how 
unreserved  his  offer  of  himself,  and  yet  how 
futile  to  the  eye  of  human  wisdom!  But,  as  in 
the  days  of  Paul,  so  in  the  days  of  Asbury,  God’s 
call  was  not  to  the  wise,  the  mighty,  the  noble, 
but  to  the  weak,  the  insignificant,  the  humble, 
that  by  these  he  might  show  forth  the  power 
and  grace  and  wisdom  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Such  is,  in  substance,  Asbury’s  account  of  his 
early  years  and  labors,  preparation  in  England 
and  call  to  the  work  in  America.  Always  of  a 
serious  and  thoughtful  nature,  sin  appeared  to 
him  a  terrible  thing,  and  his  tender  conscience 

19 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


never  allowed  him  to  think  lightly  of  his  own 
faults  and  imperfections.  To  the  end  of  his 
life  he  was  faithful  in  setting  down  his  short¬ 
comings,  and  never  excused  sin  in  himself,  how¬ 
ever  trivial  it  might  seem  to  others. 

The  influence  of  his  mother  was  evidently  an 
abiding  one  in  his  life.  He  saw  much  more  of 
her  than  of  his  father,  and  though  in  his  earliest 
years  she  said  little  about  religion,  the  death  of 
her  young  daughter,  Sarah,  was  a  sore  bereave¬ 
ment,  and  under  the  blow  she  turned  for  consola¬ 
tion  to  God’s  Word  and  became  a  constant  Bible 
reader.  4 ‘This  afflictive  Providence  graciously 
terminated”  in  her  conversion.  This  was  before 
Methodism  came  to  Handsworth.  She  spent  much 
time  in  reading  and  prayer,  having  few  neigh¬ 
bors  who  were  in  close  sympathy  with  her  devotion. 
“For  fifty  years,”  said  her  loving  son,  “her  hands, 
her  house,  her  heart  were  open  to  receive  the 
people  of  God  and  ministers  of  Christ,  and  thus 
a  lamp  was  lighted  up  in  a  dark  place  called 
Great  Barre  in  Great  Britain.”  Her  son’s 
tribute  of  affection  was  very  beautiful  and  very 
tender.  On  her  death  he  wrote: 

She  was  an  afflicted,  yet  most  active  woman,  of  quick 
bodily  powers  and  masculine  understanding.  Nevertheless, 
“so  kindly  all  the  elements  were  mixed  in  her,”  her  strong 
mind  quickly  felt  the  subduing  influence  of  that  Christian 
sympathy  which  “weeps  with  those  who  weep,”  and  “rejoices 

20 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


with  those  who  do  rejoice.”  As  a  woman  and  a  wife  she  was 
chaste,  modest,  blameless;  as  a  mother  (above  all  other 
women  in  the  world  would  I  claim  her  for  my  own)  ardently 
affectionate;  as  “a  mother  in  Israel”  few  of  her  sex  have 
done  more  by  a  holy  walk  to  live,  and  by  personal  labor  to 
support,  the  gospel,  and  to  wash  the  saints’  feet;  as  a  friend 
she  was  generous,  true,  and  constant. 

She  died  at  the  age  of  eighty-seven  or  eighty- 
eight  years.  His  father  had  passed  on  six  years 
before  at  the  age  of  eighty-four  or  eighty-five, 
dying  very  happy.  The  bishop  used  to  recall 
how  his  father  w’ept  at  his  departure  for  America, 
saying,  “I  shall  never  see  him  again,”  and  he 
never  did.  For  twenty-six  years  he  was  priv¬ 
ileged  to  be  with  these  noble,  conscientious,  whole¬ 
some  parents,  during  which  those  formative 
influences  came  into  his  life  to  mold  and  fashion 
it  for  time  and  eternity,  and  when  he  sailed  for 
America  in  1771  his  faith  was  fixed  unalterably 
upon  God  and  his  face  upon  a  life  of  devotion 
and  service. 

He  never  forgot  his  father  and  mother,  but 
wrote  to  them  regularly  and  sent  remittances 
from  time  to  time  that  they  should  never  be  in 
want  in  their  declining  years.  They  were  the  only 
family  he  was  ever  to  have.  There  is  a  sentence 
in  one  of  his  letters  to  his  mother,  who  wanted 
him  to  return,  that  has  been  interpreted  as  indi¬ 
cating  that  he  had  had  an  attachment  to  a  young 

21 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


lady  in  England  to  which  his  mother  had  not 
been  favorable.  However  this  may  be,  he  never 
entertained  the  thought  of  marriage  in  America, 
and  he  explains  why  in  his  Journal ,  when  he  was 
fifty-nine  years  of  age.  He  intimates  that  it  was 
the  result  of  circumstances,  not  of  choice.  He 
was  an  itinerant  at  twenty-one,  came  to  the 
colonies  at  twenty-six,  expecting  to  go  back  when 
he  was  thirty.  The  war  intervened  and  prevented 
his  return,  and  the  exigencies  of  his  work  held 
him  until  he  became  bishop  and  the  onerous 
duties  of  that  office  required  him  to  travel  con¬ 
tinuously  and  he  could  hardly  expect  “to  find  a 
woman  with  grace  enough  to  enable  her  to  live 
but  one  week  out  of  fifty-two  with  her  husba#nd.” 
He  did  not  deem  that  wedlock  under  such  con¬ 
ditions  was  proper.  More  than  that,  he  had 
little  or  no  money  for  the  support  of  a  wife. 

This  was  clearly  one  of  those  exceptional  cases 
in  which  the  call  of  God  to  a  supreme  and  engross¬ 
ing  duty  justifies  a  noble,  heroic  soul  in  sacrificing 
the  love  and  comfort  and  happiness  of  a  home. 
Asbury  never  owned  a  house,  and  he  could  sing 
with  most  of  the  itinerants: 

“No  foot  of  land  do  I  possess, 

No  cottage  in  this  wilderness.” 

The  little  that  he  left  for  his  brother  itinerants 
by  his  will  had  come  to  him  as  gifts  or  bequests 

22 


PLEASANT  STREET,  WASHINGTON,  D. 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


from  admiring  friends.  xAs  he  said  twelve  years 
before  his  death,  he  would  bestow  the  pittance 
he  might  have  to  spare  “upon  the  widows  and 
fatherless  girls,  and  poor  married  men.” 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  his  influence  as  a  single 
man  was  much  greater  in  securing  unmarried 
men  for  the  ministry.  He  did  exert  what  pressure 
he  could  for  some  years  while  establishing  the 
itinerancy  to  restrain  preachers  from  marrying, 
at  least  as  early  as  they  might  otherwise  have 
entered  into  that  relation. 

The  Francis  Asbury  that  was  could  not  have 
been  produced  in  his  full-rounded  maturity  except 
by  a  Christian  home.  In  that  home  in  Hands- 
worth  was  reared  the  leader  who  gathered  and 
inspired  and  organized  the  religious  forces  wfliich 
helped  in  winning  a  new  nation  to  Christian 
civilization.  He  was  not  great  in  wealth  and 
strength  of  mind;  he  was  not  a  genius  command¬ 
ing  the  homage  of  men;  he  was  not  a  born  leader 
whom  the  multitude  instinctively  recognize  and 
follow;  he  was  not  an  orator  to  sway  great  audi¬ 
ences  with  eloquence;  he  was  not  a  man  of  great 
personal  magnetism  to  draw  people  to  him  in  a 
strong  friendship.  He  was  a  humble  preacher 
commissioned  of  God  to  tell  the  story 

“Of  unseen  things  above, 

Of  Jesus  and  his  glory, 

Of  Jesus  and  his  love,” 

23 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


with  qualities  of  heart  and  mind,  of  courage  and 
will,  that  could  stand  the  severest  test;  of  pa¬ 
tience  and  perseverance  never  inactive,  of  clear 
perception  and  understanding,  of  conviction  and 
faith  that  never  wavered,  and  of  a  trust  in  God 
that  the  hosts  of  evil  could  not  shake  nor  weaken. 

It  was,  after  all,  men,  and  not  devils,  who  tried 
him  most.  They  attacked  him  in  every  way. 
They  told  him  he  was  the  biggest  villain  in  Amer¬ 
ica;  that  his  preaching  would  empty  the  church; 
that  he  sought  power  over  men  to  drive  and  en¬ 
slave  them;  that  he  was  a  tyrant  over  the  poor 
preachers;  that  he  was  vain  and  wanted  honors 
to  be  paid  to  him;  that  he  was  determined  either 
to  rule  or  to  ruin.  Even  John  Wesley  accused 
him,  in  a  letter  which  the  poor  itinerant  said  was 
“a  bitter  pill,”  of  strutting,  and  of  calling  himself 
a  bishop,  because  it  was  a  higher-sounding  word 
than  superintendent.  Asbury  was  sensitive  and 
felt  deeply  the  attacks  of  O’Kelly  and  others, 
because  they  were  so  unjust  and  undeserved,  but 
he  bore  them  patiently.  The  praises  that  some 
men  uttered  to  his  face  were  by  him  deemed  most 
dangerous,  and  he  ever  tried  to  avoid  them. 

But  greatest  of  all  elements  in  his  preparation 
for  his  work  was  his  settled  faith  and  his  constant 
communion  with  God.  Benjamin  Franklin  had  a 
settled  faith  from  the  beginning,  and  it  was  that 
which  enabled  him  in  his  turbulent  young  life, 

24 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


both  before  and  after  he  reached  Philadelphia 
friendless  and  penniless,  with  no  apparent  future, 
to  hold  on  his  way  serenely.  Writing  in  old  age 
about  it  he  said:  “That  Being  who  gave  me  exist¬ 
ence  and  through  almost  three  score  years  has 
been  continually  showering  his  blessings  upon  me, 
whose  very  chastisements  have  been  a  blessing 
to  me,  can  I  doubt  that  he  loves  me?”  Francis 
Asbury  had  a  similar  childlike  faith  which  had 
been  determined  and  settled  before  he  left  his 
English  home,  and  God  honored  him  for  it  and 
used  him  as  the  instrument  of  his  providence 
for  the  leadership  of  a  great  and  evergrowing 
movement  for  the  salvation  of  men. 


25 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


CHAPTER  III 

METHODISM  IN  THE  FORMATIVE 

STAGE 


VERY  little  had  been  done,  before  Asbury 
arrived,  to  apply  in  the  colonies  the  rules 
and  develop  the  system  which  the  genius 
of  John  Wesley  had  brought  into  being  in  England 
in  an  orderly,  methodical  way.  Wesley  was  a 
High  Churchman,  loyal  to  the  Church  of  England, 
and  he  took  no  step  contrary  to  the  custom  and 
order  of  that  body  until  convinced  that  it  was 
necessary  and  according  to  the  will  of  God.  It 
was  not  until  the  churches  were  closed  to  him 
and  crowds,  which  available  rooms  could  not 
accommodate,  were  anxious  to  hear  him  that  he 
took  up  field  preaching,  recalling,  as  he  did  so, 
that  Christ  preached  to  the  multitude  on  the 
mountain.  The  various  features  of  Methodism 
were  adopted  under  the  pressure  of  circumstances: 

1.  Societies  were  organized  for  Christian  fel¬ 
lowship,  which  was  almost  unknown  at  that  time 
in  the  Established  Church,  and  to  guard  against 
backsliding. 

2.  Cl  ass -meetings ,  small  companies  of  converts 
who  needed  oversight  of  competent  leaders  for 

26 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


development  in  Christian  life,  and  were  con¬ 
venient  for  systematic  collection  of  funds  for  the 
work. 

3.  Lay  preachers  were  recognized  by  Wesley  as 
called  of  God  to  extend  the  work. 

4.  Field  preaching ,  a  necessity,  since  the 
churches  were  closed  to  Wesley,  and  crowds  too 
large  for  available  rooms  were  eager  to  hear  him. 

5.  Tickets  were  issued  quarterly  to  members  in 
good  standing  to  limit  attendance  at  love  feasts 
and  meetings  of  society.  It  was  thought  very 
desirable  that  unconverted  persons  should,  as 
a  rule,  be  excluded. 

6.  Itinerancy .  The  necessity  for  frequent  changes 
in  the  appointment  of  preachers  grew  out  of  the 
fact  that  it  was  a  movement,  not  a  church, 
societies  increasing  too  fast  to  obtain,  and  being 
too  weak  to  maintain,  settled  pastors.  The 
itinerant  plan,  with  frequent  changes,  made  the 
largest  use  possible  of  the  limited  supply. 

7.  Love  feasts.  Revival  of  the  agape  of  the 
primitive  church  for  the  deepening  of  the  spiritual 
life  in  fellowship. 

8.  Quarterly  meeting.  An  English  feature 
adopted  near  the  rise  of  the  societies,  and  recog¬ 
nized  by  the  Conference  of  1749,  which  directed 
assistants  to  hold  it  in  every  society  and  “therein 
diligently  inquire  into  both  the  spiritual  and  tem¬ 
poral  interests”  of  each.  It  does  not  appear  that 

27 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


Asbury  introduced  it  among  the  American  so¬ 
cieties,  but  he  found  it  already  in  use  in  Maryland, 
as  did  Boardman,  who  preceded  him.  Probably 
Strawbridge  adopted  it  as  he  had  known  it  in 
Ireland.  Asbury  evidently  believed  in  it  and  made 
provision  for  it  in  the  Discipline .  Before  the 
Annual  Conference  came  into  use  the  character 
of  the  preachers  was  examined  at  the  4 ‘Quarterly 
Meeting  Conferences,”  as  they  were  afterward 
called.  The  word  “Meeting”  in  the  title  was 
retained  until  1852,  when  it  was  dropped.  Our 
Methodist  historians  refer  to  the  Quarterly  Con¬ 
ference,  but  none  of  them  appear  to  have  given 
its  history.  Stevens,  speaking  of  the  English 
Wesleyan  Conference  of  1749,  says,  that  one  of 
its  acts  was  to  order  that  quarterly  meetings, 
which  had  been  held  in  some  places,  should  there¬ 
after  “be  observed  in  all  the  societies.”  They 
were  great  occasions  in  Maryland,  even  in  Straw- 
bridge’s  day,  when  people  came  from  far  and 
near  to  attend  them;  and  they  were  very  popular 
in  country  districts,  during  a  large  part  of  the 
last  century,  covering  Sunday  completely  and 
Saturday  in  whole  or  in  part.  The  change  of  title 
which  seems  to  have  been  decreed  in  the  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church  will  sever  another  tie  to  the 
early  history  of  Methodism,  though  the  Confer¬ 
ence  itself  is  to  be  retained. 

9.  An  Annual  Conference  soon  became  necessary 

28 


MINUTES 


OF  THE 


Methodift  Conferences, 


ANNUALLY  HELD  IN 


AMERICA, 


From  1773  to  1794,  inclufive. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

miNTED  B7  HENRY  TUCKNISS,  NO.  25,  CHURCH-ALLEY, 

AND  SOLD  BY  JOHN  DfCKINS,  NO.  44,  NORTH  SECOND 
STREET,  NEAR  ARCH  STREET* 

M  DCC  XCY. 

FAC-SIMILE  OF  TITLE  PAGE  OF 
FIRST  DISCIPLINE 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


to  form  societies  and  preaching  places  into  cir¬ 
cuits,  to  examine  the  moral  character  of  the 
preachers  and  to  arrange  a  plan  of  appointment 
so  that  several  preachers  could  work  together 
on  each  circuit,  and  for  the  consideration  of  ques¬ 
tions  of  doctrine  and  discipline.  The  first  Con¬ 
ference  was  held  in  1744  with  John  and  Charles 
Wesley,  four  other  clergymen,  and  four  lay  preach¬ 
ers  as  members. 

The  missionaries  sent  over  here  were  instructed 
by  Wesley  to  see  that  none  departed  from  the 
doctrine  and  discipline  set  forth  by  the  Confer¬ 
ence  Minutes,  and  the  first  American  Conference 
in  1773  practically  made  this  a  condition  of 
fellowship.  The  conditions  in  America  were  not 
favorable  to  unity  in  spirit  and  observance.  The 
societies  in  Maryland  and  Virginia  were  in  an 
almost  isolated  state  for  a  few  years.  Widely 
separated  from  those  in  New  York  and  Phila¬ 
delphia,  they  were  neither  in  correspondence  with 
those  in  the  North  nor  with  Wesley.  Visitation 
from  the  North  was  infrequent;  from  the  South 
northward  there  was  none  and  there  was  no  one 
in  authority  to  advise  and  supervise.  After  the 
arrival  of  Boardman  and  Pilmoor  in  1769,  and 
Williams  and  King,  the  Southern  societies  were 
included  in  their  ministrations.  Captain  Webb, 
Pilmoor,  and  Boardman  were  the  first  from  the 
North  to  meet  the  societies  in  Maryland  in  the 

29 


FRANCIS  ASRURY 


summer  of  1780.  It  appears  that  Quarterly  Meet¬ 
ings  or  Conferences  had  been  established  there 
at  this  early  date,  doubtless  by  Strawbridge,  and 
there  was  no  complaint  of  violation  of  the  Disci¬ 
pline,  except  in  the  administration  of  the  ordi¬ 
nances  in  which  many  members  favored  his  action. 

From  the  first  Asbury’s  zeal  for  the  discipline 
was  manifested.  His  Journal  makes  frequent 
reference  to  the  subject.  On  his  first  visit  to 
the  New  York  society  he  was  pleased  to  see  in 
some  members  “a  love  of  discipline.”  In  these 
days  the  word  “discipline”  conveys  the  idea  of 
processes  involving  trial  and  penalties  with  the 
thought  of  “correction”  for  faults  or  failures. 
But  in  Asbury’s  time  it  meant  the  laws  prescrib¬ 
ing  methods  of  procedure.  It  was,  in  his  sight, 
quite  wrong  to  admit  to  love  feasts  anybody  but 
those  holding  tickets,  which  nobody  living  in  our 
days  has  ever  used,  or  even  seen,  except  as  antiq¬ 
uities.  Meetings  of  the  society,  held  often  Sunday 
evening,  in  charge  of  the  preacher  were  also  for 
members  only,  except  that  twice  or  thrice  at  the 
utmost,  others  could  be  admitted.  Asbury  some¬ 
times  “kept  the  door”  himself  to  see  that  only 
those  having  the  right  to  do  so  were  admitted. 
The  idea,  of  course,  was  that  the  people  of  God 
should  be  by  themselves,  with  nothing  to  distract 
from  the  deep  devotions  and  close  personal  exam¬ 
ination  conducted  for  the  soul’s  welfare.  At 

30 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Philadelphia,  in  April,  1772,  he  “kept  the  door” 
and  heard  afterward  that  those  kept  out  were 
greatly  offended.  But  he  refused  to  let  it  trouble 
him. 

Later,  he  was  in  New  York,  and  after  preach¬ 
ing  in  the  morning,  attending  Saint  Paul’s  for 
communion  in  the  afternoon,  he  preached  at 
night  and  then  met  the  society.  He  writes  that 
he  had  “a  dry  time”  and  was  grieved  to  see  the 
worldliness  of  the  people  in  the  matter  of  dress. 
He  does  not  explain  what  gave  him  “a  dry  time” 
- — possibly  it  was  the  sight  of  some  fashionable 
dresses.  He  criticized  Richard  Wright,  his  ship 
companion,  for  ending  a  revival  in  John  Street 
Church  with  a  general  love  feast,  which  “is  undo¬ 
ing,”  he  said,  “all  he  has  done.” 

Methodists  were  long  regarded  as  a  plain 
people  who  observed  the  scriptural  provision 
against  “the  putting  on  of  gold  or  costly  apparel,” 
introduced  in  the  General  Rules  by  the  Wesleys 
and,  of  course,  well  known  to  Asbury;  but  neither 
he  nor  John  Wesley  seems  to  have  kept  it  literally, 
for  the  latter  wore  a  gold  seal  and  the  former  a 
gold  watch.  In  the  English  Minutes  the  term 
used  was,  “superfluous  ornaments.”  Of  course 
these  were  for  use  and  not  mere  ornaments.  And 
both  had  clothes  made  of  good  cloth,  which  is 
always  more  costly  than  inferior  goods.  Here, 
again,  the  distinction  between  use  and  mere 

31 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


decoration  applies.  Asbury  particularly  objected 
to  feathers  as  an  adornment,  though  not  for  the 
same  reason  that  the  law  now  protects  birds, 
but  as  an  unnecessary  gilding  of  the  lily.  Once 
at  dinner  where  the  ladies  had  head-dresses  he 
called  attention  to  what  he  considered  a  superfluous 
decoration.  The  ladies  maintained  a  polite  silence 
but  one  of  his  own  sex  quietly  remarked  he 
thought  it  was  a  matter  of  little  moment.  The 
retort  might  have  been  made:  “But  you,  sir, 
wear  a  wig,  not  for  necessary  head  covering,  but 
from  useless  custom.”  Asbury ’s  wig  attracted 
much  attention,  he  tells  us.  At  times  he  laid  it 
aside.  When  he  finally  discarded  it  he  does  not  say. 

The  first  Discipline ,  printed  in  1785,  has  a 
provision  against  issuing  love-feast  tickets  to  “any 
that  wear  (calashes)  high  heads,  (or)  enormous 
bonnets,  ruffles  or  rings ”  (Italics  copied).  This 
was  in  answer  to  the  question:  “Do  we  observe 
any  evil  which  has  lately  prevailed  among  our 
societies?” 

There  were  good,  sound  reasons  for  economy  in 
expenditures  in  those  days,  not  only  for  Method¬ 
ists,  but  for  others  as  well.  It  was  before  the 
age  of  machinery  which  has  so  marvelously  added 
to  the  power  of  production,  so  that  the  articles 
and  wealth  of  commerce  have  increased  almost 
beyond  computation.  Other  countries  produced 
most  of  the  things  America  needed,  except  natural 

32 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


products,  and  the  money  in  circulation  was  lim¬ 
ited.  Moreover,  it  was  a  new  country,  and,  under 
the  new  order  of  separation  of  church  and  state, 
the  churches  had  to  learn  how  to  raise  their  own 
expenses  and  especially  to  provide  the  means  for 
church  buildings  and  parsonages.  It  is  remark¬ 
able  that  the  small  Methodist  societies  in  New 
York  and  Maryland  were  able  to  erect  two,  if 
not  three,  church  edifices  within  a  few  years  after 
they  were  formed.  The  New  York  building  cost 
a  considerable  sum  of  money.  Soon  after,  a  church 
building  was  bought  in  Philadelphia,  a  parsonage 
erected  in  New  York,  and  a  third  church  in 
Maryland. 

The  early  church  buildings  were  of  necessity 
plain.  Asbury  did  not  like  steeples,  nor  bells,  nor 
organs.  He  writes  about  a  Methodist  church  in 
xAugusta,  Georgia,  with  a  cracked  bell  over  the 
gallery.  “May  it  break!’’  he  exclaims.  It  was 
the  first  he  ever  saw  “in  a  house  of  ours  in  Amer¬ 
ica;  I  hope  it  will  be  the  last.”  In  June,  1813,  in 
New  Hampshire  he  writes  that  Methodism  in 
the  East  is  not  what  he  would  like  to  have  it. 
He  says: 

In  New  England  we  sing,  we  build  houses,  we  eat,  and 
stand  at  prayer.  Here  preachers  locate  and  people  support 
them,  and  have  traveling  preachers  also.  .  .  .  Oh,  rare 
steeple  houses,  bells  (organs  by  and  by);  these  things  are 
against  me  and  contrary  to  the  simplicity  of  Christ. 

33 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


Then  he  adds:  We  have  made  a  stand  in  the 
New  England  Conference  against  steeples  and 
pews;  and  shall  possibly  give  up  the  houses  unless 
the  pews  are  taken  out.”  The  clause  next  to 
the  last  probably  refers  to  joint  ownership  of 
the  edifices  with  another  denomination,  an  ex¬ 
pedient  to  save  expense.  What  he  means  by 
linking  together  singing,  building  and  eating  with 
“standing  at  prayer”  is  not  clear;  nor  is  his  ref¬ 
erence  to  traveling  preachers,  unless  some  of 
them  received  salaries  instead  of  “quarterage”  or 
support. 

“Quarterage,”  quarterly  contributions,  in  com¬ 
mon  use  from  the  first,  is  now  a  thing  quite  of 
the  last  century.  Asbury  never  had  what  was 
called  a  salary,  but  was  paid,  like  the  other  itin¬ 
erants,  about  sixty-four  dollars  a  year  for  per¬ 
sonal  needs,  clothing,  etc.  (subsequently  in¬ 
creased  to  eighty  dollars),  where  he  was  laboring, 
together  with  traveling  expenses.  Board  was 
generally  provided  free. 

Simplicity  was  the  order  of  the  times,  and  none 
lived  more  simply  than  the  preachers  and  the 
majority  of  members.  Methodism  made  its  appeal 
to  the  poor,  although  it  did  not  refuse  to  receive 
the  well-to-do.  Asbury  himself  brought  a  number 
of  distinguished  families  into  the  church — gov¬ 
ernors,  judges,  physicians,  and  others  of  standing 
and  influence  in  their  respective  communities. 

34 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Methodism  was  long  solicitous  not  to  be  known 
as  a  rich  man’s  church.  This  began  not  with 
Asbury,  but  with  Wesley.  Lord  Falkland  is 
credited  with  this  epigram,  “Religion  gave  birth 
to  wealth  and  was  devoured  by  its  own  offspring,” 
and  if  Wesley  did  not  use  this  particular  quota¬ 
tion,  he  did  assert  the  difficulty  of  wealthy  men 
maintaining  a  fervent  faith.  There  was  for  many 
years  a  provision  in  the  Discipline,  probably 
copied  from  the  English  Minutes,  advising  against 
the  building  of  costly  churches,  for  these  would 
make  rich  men  necessary  to  us,  to  the  detriment 
of  Methodist  simplicity.  It  disappeared  at  last,1 
for  in  the  cities  and  larger  towns  edifices  of  wood 
were  forbidden,  and  brick  and  stone  became 
necessary  as  a  protection  against  fire.  Moreover, 
church  buildings  are  built  now  for  future  as  well 
as  present  needs,  and  are  therefore  more  econom¬ 
ical  because  they  last  so  much  longer.  Three 
buildings  have  occupied  the  oldest  site  which 
American  Methodism  possesses,  that  of  old  John 
Street  in  New  York.  Embury’s  church  was  torn 
down  in  1818  and  a  new  one  erected,  to  give 
place  in  turn  to  the  present  building  in  1848,  and 

1  The  words  which  were  dropped  in  1872  were  those  following  “un¬ 
avoidable”:  “Let  all  our  churches  be  built  plain  and  decent  and  with 
free  seats,  as  far  as  possible;  but  not  more  expensive  than  is  absolutely 
unavoidable;  otherwise  the  necessity  of  raising  money  will  make  rich 
men  necessary  to  us.  And  if  dependent  on  them  and  governed  by  them, 
then  farewell  Methodist  discipline,  if  not  doctrine,  too.” 

35 


FRANCIS  A8BURY 


a  fourth  is  now  desperately  needed;  whereas 
Saint  George’s,  in  Philadelphia,  bought  from 
another  denomination,  was  in  use  from  the  begin¬ 
ning  until  a  few  years  ago. 

A  description  of  the  first  John  Street  Church 
as  built  by  Embury  and  others  at  a  cost  of  con¬ 
siderably  more  than  the  estimated  £600,  shows 
that  it  was  of  ballasted  stone,  covered  outside 
with  stucco  and  whitewashed  inside.  The  high 
pulpit  resting  on  a  single  pillar  and  entered  by  a 
winding  stair,  the  front  of  the  gallery,  and  the 
front  of  the  altar  were  painted  white.  A  plain 
carpet  covered  the  altar  and  pulpit  stairs.  In 
the  altar  were  two  wooden  benches  and  a  few 
chairs  with  a  plain  table.  Lamps  with  sperm  oil 
gave  the  light,  and  round  high  stoves  the  heat. 
The  book  board  was  without  cushion  and  the 
floor  uncarpeted.  The  windows  had  green  blinds 
outside,  and  on  the  men’s  side  rows  of  pegs  for 
their  hats  were  fastened  on  the  walls.  The  seat¬ 
ing  was  of  wooden  benches,  with  narrow  strips 
for  the  back.  Those  in  Light  Street  Church, 
Baltimore,  when  the  first  General  Conference  met 
in  1784,  are  said  to  have  been  minus  backs.  The 
women  and  men  were  separated  with  the  aisle 
between  them.  For  years  this  rule  was  strictly 
enforced,  and  if  a  man  entering  late  sat  on  the 
women’s  side,  the  sexton  would  order  him  to  his 
own  side,  even  during  the  service.  There  were 

36 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


three  preaching  services  ordinarily  on  Sunday, 
namely,  at  10:30  a.  m.,  3  p.  m.  and  at  night. 
Prayer  meeting  was  held  Wednesday  night,  a 
lecture  was  given  on  some  other  evening,  and 
classes  on  other  evenings.  Church  floors  were 
uncarpeted,  and  sometimes  sanded. 

What  is  known  as  the  “Old  Book”  of  John 
Street,  containing  the  accounts  both  of  the  church 
building  and  the  preacher’s  house,  and  of  pay¬ 
ments  to  and  for  the  preachers,  carries  some 
curious  and  interesting  items.  At  that  early  day 
a  man  was  paid  for  giving  instruction  in  singing. 
The  amount  is  £2,  6;  but  the  period  covered  is 
not  mentioned.  For  a  letter  from  Philadelphia  for 
Preacher  Boardman  one  shilling  is  charged.  For 
preacher’s  board  £12,  no  period  mentioned,  and 
for  preacher’s  housekeeping  £5,  13,  5.  A  lawyer 
got  sixteen  shillings  for  advice,  a  modest  fee. 
The  care  of  Preacher  Williams’  horse  cost  £3,  16,  1, 
and  a  feather  bed,  bolster  and  pillow  £7,  16,  4, 
which  should  have  insured  good  goose  feathers. 
Another  item  is  for  shaving  preachers  £2,  5,  6;  a 
pair  of  sheets  (linen?)  cost  £1,  and  two  letters  for 
Pilmoor  and  one  for  Williams,  three  shillings;  a 
pair  of  blankets,  £1;  clothing  for  Boardman 
£7,  10,  and  “to  carry  him  to  Philadelphia,”  £2. 
“Sugar  and  wine”  cost  13s.  9d.,  probably  com¬ 
munion  wine;  a  looking-glass  £1, 4,  preacher’s 
washing  £2,  18  (it  must  have  been  allowed  to 

37 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


accumulate),  and  poll  tax  for  Preacher  Wright, 
sixteen  shillings. 

Another  charge  is  for  a  top  hat  for  the  preacher. 
The  following  questions  and  answers,2  given  in 
substance,  cover  an  official  meeting  held  by 
Asbury  when  he  first  served  John  Street  Church: 

1.  When  shall  there  be  public  preaching? 

Tuesday,  Thursday  and  Friday  nights,  besides  the  Lord’s 
Day  and  Saturday  night. 

2.  Shall  there  be  Sunday  morning  preaching? 

Yes. 

3.  Shall  the  society  meeting  be  private? 

Some  doubted,  but  Asbury  insisted  on  the  rule  and  read 
a  letter  from  Wesley  in  support  of  it. 

4.  Shall  there  be  weekly  and  quarterly  collections? 

Yes. 

5.  How  shall  the  debt  of  $1,100  be  raised? 

No  means  devised. 

6.  Shall  we  be  more  strict  with  disorderly  persons? 

No. 

7.  Shall  there  be  three  stewards? 

No. 

8.  Are  we  sufficiently  frugal? 

Yes. 

9.  Shall  the  stewards  meet  the  pastor  once  a  week? 

Yes. 

10.  Do  we  avoid  all  partiality? 

No  answer. 

11.  Can  we  cover  the  balance  of  our  accounts? 

Yes. 


2  Seaman’s  Annals. 


38 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


12.  Who  shall  stand  at  the  door  for  the  society  meeting? 
Not  determined. 

13.  Shall  the  Preacher  meet  the  Society  Sunday  nights? 
Agreed  to  after  some  opposition. 

14.  Who  shall  be  the  collectors? 

Not  determined. 

15.  Shall  the  Preacher  meet  the  children? 

Yes. 

16.  Shall  we  spread  books? 

Undetermined. 

Evidently,  lay  officials  did  not  always  meet 
the  wishes  of  the  preachers. 

The  class  meeting  seems  to  have  commended 
itself  from  the  first,  both  in  England  and  America, 
as  a  means  of  developing  the  spiritual  life  by 
close  personal  contact  once  a  week  of  small  com¬ 
panies  of  members  under  the  care  of  a  competent 
leader.  In  such  a  small  company  the  members 
soon  became  familiar  with  one  another  and  with 
the  leader,  losing  their  timidity,  gaining  confidence 
in  relating  their  experiences,  growing  in  grace  and 
in  power  to  resist  evil  influences,  and  also  learning 
how  to  bear  testimony  in  love  feast  and  prayer 
meeting  before  larger  gatherings.  It  was  a  good 
school  of  practical  training,  and  out  of  it  came 
effective  exhorters,  local  preachers,  and  itinerants. 
All  societies  maintained  classes,  and  often,  if  not 
always,  a  small  class  preceded  and  led  to  the 
organization  of  a  society,  as  in  the  beginnings  of 
Embury  in  New  York  and  Strawbridge  in  Mary- 

39 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


land.  Asbury  encouraged  this  feature,  and  in 
his  travels,  even  after  he  became  bishop,  met 
the  classes  himself,  wherever  he  had  time  to  do 
so.  His  Journal  has  no  complaint,  so  far  as  I 
recall,  that  they  were  anywhere  neglected.  In 
a  visit  to  Brooklyn  in  July,  1795,  he  preached  in 
the  morning,  assisted  in  the  administration  of  the 
sacrament  in  the  afternoon,  “met  the  black 
[Negro]  classes,”  preached  at  half -past  six  and 
closed  the  day  by  meeting  two  men’s  classes.  The 
next  day  he  met  nine  classes  and  adds:  “I  have 
now  spoken  to  most  of  the  members  here,  one 
by  one.”  The  next  year  he  met  six  classes  in 
New  York,  besides  preaching  three  times,  and 
also  the  society.  He  told  the  latter  that  they 
knew  little  of  his  life  and  labors,  except  in  the 
pulpit,  the  family,  and  meetings.  They  did  not 
even  know  of  his  labors  in  that  city,  much  less 
where  he  had  been  and  what  he  had  done  during 
the  year. 

Out  of  the  class  meeting  grew  the  prayer  meet¬ 
ing,  which  Asbury  encouraged.  In  Maryland  as 
early  as  September,  1779,  he  speaks  of  pressing 
a  society  to  have  prayer  meetings,  and  adds, 
“they  appointed  one  before  they  parted.”  The 
class  meeting  Methodism  dropped  long  since;  but 
the  prayer  meeting  abides,  though,  unfortunately, 
with  diminished  attendance  and  power.  The 
faithful  bishop  would  have  been  greatly  dis- 

40 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


tressed  at  the  thought  of  the  gradual  decline  and 
death  of  the  class  meeting,  but  with  its  chief 
substitute  also  waning  he  would  have  been  filled 
with  a  fearful  foreboding. 

In  the  days  before  the  Methodist  periodical 
press  was  instituted  Asbury’s  custom  to  meet 
the  societies  and  the  classes  as  often  as  possible 
and  to  pay  pastoral  visits  among  the  members 
enabled  him  to  acquire  first-hand  information  as 
to  the  condition  and  needs  of  Methodism  through¬ 
out  the  long  and  rapidly  lengthening  line  of  its 
organized  societies.  He  saw  with  a  prophet’s 
vision  that  this  movement  was  destined  to  become 
a  mighty  one,  and  that  the  few  hundreds  he 
found  when  he  landed  in  1771  were  destined  to 
increase  to  thousands,  tens  of  thousands,  hundreds 
of  thousands,  and  millions,  and  he  believed  the 
best  guaranty  of  its  continued  purity,  as  its  power 
and  influence  developed,  was  to  be  found  in  the 
faithful  maintenance  of  its  doctrines  and  disci¬ 
pline,  which  he  accepted  from  the  beginning  as 
the  best  in  the  world. 


41 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


CHAPTER  IV 

AS  A  SERIES  OF  SOCIETIES 


AMERICAN  Methodism,  in  a  little  over  a 
century  and  a  half,  from  humble  and 
insignificant  beginnings,  has  attained  to 
the  dignity  and  power  of  a  communion  of  over 
9,000,000  members.  Covering  more  completely 
than  any  other  church  the  States  and  territories 
of  this  widely  extended  republic,  it  has  by  its 
missionary  enterprise  established  itself  in  half  the 
countries  of  Europe,  in  the  great  divisions  of  Asia, 
and  in  the  North,  the  South,  the  East,  and  the  West 
of  the  continents  of  Africa  and  South  America. 

4 ‘Behold,  how  great  a  matter  a  little  fire  kin- 
dleth.”  It  was,  indeed,  a  little  fire  among  the 
clusters  of  houses  in  New  Y7ork  and  the  log  cabins 
of  Maryland,  in  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century;  scarcely  more  than  a  lighted  match  in 
the  hands  of  Philip  Embury  and  Robert  Straw- 
bridge.  A  puff  of  adversity  might  have  extin¬ 
guished  it,  but  for  the  hovering  hand  of  Divine 
Providence,  These  men  were  laymen,  like  those 
who  were  scattered  abroad  from  Jerusalem  and 
carried  with  them  the  Pentecostal  fire  that  kindled 
unquenchable  flames  at  Antioch  and  Phenice  and 
Cyprus. 


42 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


More  humble  and  insignificant  beginnings  it 
would  be  difficult  to  find.  The  first  comers  from 
Ireland  were  not  driven  to  the  New  World  by 
persecution,  like  the  Puritans  and  the  Quakers, 
nor  by  zeal  for  the  conversion  of  the  pagan  Indians, 
like  Catholic  monks,  nor  even  to  preach  redis¬ 
covered  truths  of  the  gospel,  but,  rather,  by  the 
necessity  of  seeking  a  more  adequate  income 
for  their  families,  a  purpose  deemed  worthy  in 
all  ages  of  the  world.  Philip  Embury  and  Robert 
Strawbridge  were  carpenters  and  brought  along 
the  tools  of  their  trade.  The  latter  found  imme¬ 
diate  occasion  to  use  his  in  the  woods  at  Sams 
Creek  in  putting  together  a  cabin  for  his  family 
and  later  a  log  meetinghouse,  the  first  Methodist 
place  of  worship  in  Maryland.  In  New  York 
Embury  opened  his  carpenter’s  chest  to  erect 
Wesley  Chapel.  Their  Methodist  faith  had  not 
been  forgotten  in  the  exigencies  of  colonial  life, 
but  each,  like  the  Roman  centurion,  built  with 
help,  of  course,  a  house  of  worship  for  the  people. 

From  these  little  beginnings  of  the  Irish 
Methodists  in  New  York  and  Maryland,  American 
Methodism  has  descended.  They  were  like  those 
in  Asia  Minor  where  simple  believers  preceded 
the  apostles  in  Antioch  in  preaching  and  winning 
converts,  who  were  the  first  to  be  called  Chris¬ 
tians.  Embury  and  Strawbridge  were  simple 
believers  who  had  never  been  ordained  and  were 

43 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


not  sent  by  bishop  or  church,  or  even  by  John 
Wesley,  and  yet  through  them  spiritual  flames 
had  been  kindled,  and  appeals  were  made  to 
Wesley  to  send  missionaries  to  take  up  the  work 
and  extend  it.  Among  the  letters  written  to  him 
of  which  we  know  was  one  by  Captain  Webb, 
the  soldier-preacher,  and  Thomas  Taylor,  an 
Englishman,  who  had  arrived  in  New  York  in 
October  26,  1767,  a  year  after  Embury  had  organ¬ 
ized  a  society.  Doctor  Wrangle,  a  Lutheran 
minister  who  had  been  preaching  in  Philadelphia, 
and  knew  Methodists  there,  dined  with  Wesley 
in  London,  on  his  way  back  to  Sweden,  and  urged 
that  missionaries  be  sent  to  help  the  Americans, 
“multitudes  of  whom  are  as  sheep  without  a 
shepherd.”  Probably  there  were  other  appeals. 
That  they  were  not  in  vain  is  indicated  by  an 
entry  in  Wesley’s  Journal ,  concerning  the  con¬ 
ference  at  Leeds,  August  1,  1768: 

On  Thursday  I  mentioned  the  case  of  our  brethren  in 
New  York,  who  had  built  the  first  Methodist  preaching 
house  in  America,  and  were  in  great  want  of  money  and 
much  more  of  preaching.  Two  of  our  preachers,  Richard 
Boardman  and  Joseph  Pilmoor,  willingly  offered  themselves 
for  the  service,  by  whom  we  determined  to  send  £50  as  a 
token  of  our  brotherly  love. 

These  were  the  first  preachers  to  be  sent  by 
the  British  Wesleyan  Conference  to  America, 
though  Robert  Williams  and  John  King  had  pre- 

44 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


ceded  them  as  voluntary  recruits,  and  made  good 
in  successful  evangelistic  service.  Of  the  dozen 
or  more  English  preachers  who  came  to  the  colonies 
to  help  in  building  up  Methodism  none  were 
ordained  men,  none  had  the  right  to  administer 
the  ordinances,  until  Dr.  Thomas  Coke,  a  pres¬ 
byter  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  Richard 
Whatcoat  and  Thomas  Vasey,  whom  Wesley  had 
himself  ordained  as  presbyters  or  elders,  arrived 
late  in  1784.  Francis  Asbury  was  an  itinerant, 
with  license  as  a  local  preacher,  and  never,  in  the 
thirteen  years  he  traveled  and  preached  among 
the  societies,  prior  to  his  ordination  as  deacon 
and  elder  and  consecration  as  bishop,  in  1784, 
ventured  to  baptize  or  administer  the  communion, 
though  no  one  knew  better  than  he  the  fact  that 
in  large  sections  of  the  country  Methodists  were 
deprived  of  these  ordinances.  He  and  others 
went  to  communion  in  Episcopal  churches,  as 
opportunity  offered,  following  Wesley’s  example 
in  England. 

Robert  Strawbridge,  whose  service  was  chiefly 
among  rural  societies,  could  not  be  expected,  from 
his  circuit  experience  in  Ireland,  to  appreciate 
the  ecclesiastical  questions  involved  in  venturing 
to  take  into  his  own  hands,  as  an  unordained 
man,  the  authority  to  administer  the  ordinances. 
He  knew  that  through  no  fault  of  their  own  the 
people  were  deprived  of  them.  They  ought  to 

45 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


have  them,  and  all  that  prevented  was  a  ques¬ 
tion  of  church  order.  As  he  could  not  untie 
this  Gordian  knot,  he  cut  it,  unheedful,  it  would 
seem,  of  the  possibility  of  a  break  with  John 
Wesley  and  his  English  Conference,  and  yet  to 
these  he  owed  his  conversion  and  such  knowl¬ 
edge  as  he  had  of  the  Methodist  system,  as  also 
his  license  as  a  local  preacher.  The  first  American 
Conference  of  preachers,  in  1773,  at  Philadelphia, 
in  which  all  who  participated  were  Europeans, 
definitely  accepted  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of 
the  movement,  as  set  forth  in  the  Minutes  of 
the  Wesleyan  Conference,  and  also  Wesley’s  over¬ 
sight,  and  bound  themselves  in  solemn  agreement 
not  to  administer  the  ordinances,  and  not  to 
fellowship  those  who  did. 

Referring  to  this  action  of  preachers  at  Phila¬ 
delphia  who  had  promised  Wesley  when  they  were 
appointed  that  they  would  wTork  under  his  direc¬ 
tion,  accept  his  doctrine,  and  establish  his  disci¬ 
pline  in  America,  Doctor  Buckley,  in  his  A 
History  of  Methodists  in  the  United  States ,  quotes 
a  paragraph  from  Jesse  Lee’s  History  of  the 
Methodists  and  calls  it  ‘‘the  best  defense  of  this 
attitude,  unanswerable  from  every  point  of  view.” 
Lee’s  statement  follows: 

We  were  only  a  religious  society,  and  not  a  church;  and 
any  member  of  any  church,  wdio  would  conform  to  our  rules 
and  meet  in  a  class,  had  liberty  to  continue  in  his  own  church. 

46 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


But  as  most  of  our  society  had  been  brought  up  in  the 
Church  of  England  (so  called),  and  especially  those  of  Mary¬ 
land  and  Virginia,  it  was  recommended  to  them  to  attend 
the  services  of  that  church  and  to  partake  of  the  ordinances 
at  the  hands  of  the  ministers;  for  at  that  time  the  church 
people  were  established  by  law  in  Maryland  and  Virginia, 
and  the  ministers  were  supported  by  a  tax  on  the  people. 
In  many  places  for  a  hundred  miles  together  there  was  no 
one  to  baptize  a  child  except  a  minister  of  the  Established 
Church. 

The  word  “societies”  continued  to  be  used  until 
1816,  when  “churches”  was  substituted  in  the 
Discipline.  “Superintendent”  was  used  in  the  first 
Discipline ,  but  was  changed  to  “bishop”  in  1787. 
Asbury  was  accused  by  a  certain  disaffected  per¬ 
son  with  having  ordered  the  preachers  to  address 
him  as  bishop,  and  this  preacher,  who  afterward 
withdrew,  tried  to  make  it  appear  that  he  was 
putting  on  airs.  The  incident  from  which  the 
rather  large  inferences  were  drawn  was  a  very 
simple  one,  as  related  in  his  Journal.  The  preach¬ 
ers  themselves  raised  the  question  what  title 
they  should  use  in  addressing  letters.  Objection 
had  been  made  to  both  “Rev.”  and  “Mr.”  The 
latter  as  an  abbreviation  of  “Master”  was  con¬ 
trary  to  Scripture — “Call  no  man  master.”  The 
conclusion  was  that  the  official  title  should  be 
used,  as  deacon,  elder,  bishop,  which  was  cer¬ 
tainly  logical. 

The  action  at  Philadelphia  definitely  put  Amer- 

47 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


ican  Methodism  under  the  doctrine  and  discipline 
of  Wesley  and  his  Conference,  which  was  the 
natural  and  orderly  procedure.  Robert  Straw- 
bridge  had  begun  to  baptize  and  celebrate  com¬ 
munion  soon  after  his  arrival.  At  a  quarterly 
meeting  in  Maryland,  in  1772,  he  had  defended 
the  use  of  the  sacraments,  Asbury  taking  the 
other  side;  but  as  Boardman  at  a  previous  quar¬ 
terly  meeting  had  yielded  on  this  point,  Asbury 
thought  it  wise  not  to  be  too  insistent,  particularly 
as  he  was  at  that  time  only  4 'assistant”  and  had 
no  more  official  authority  than  any  other  preacher 
in  charge  of  a  circuit.  According  to  Asbury,  it 
was  the  understanding  at  the  Philadelphia  Con¬ 
ference  that  an  exception  was  to  be  made  in 
Strawbridge’s  case  and  he  was  to  be  allowed  to 
administer  the  ordinances  under  the  particular 
direction  of  the  assistant.  But  Strawbridge  would 
not  yield  even  this  much.  His  name  appeared 
among  the  appointments  in  1775,  but  not  in  1774. 
He  settled  on  a  farm  near  Baltimore  and  ceased 
to  itinerate  about  the  same  time,  and  died  in 
1781,  to  the  sorrow  of  many,  preachers  and  people, 
to  whom  he  had  been  a  spiritual  father. 

The  Philadelphia  Conference  is  repeatedly  desig¬ 
nated  as  the  “British  Wesleyan”  Conference,  in 
a  document  presented  to  the  General  Conference 
of  1916,  by  the  Commission  on  Priority;1  evidently, 


1  The  Origin  of  American  Methodism,  pamphlet.  J.  F.  Goucher. 

48 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


for  the  purpose  of  accentuating  alleged  differences 
between  the  English  itinerants  and  Mr.  Straw- 
bridge  and  his  followers  in  Maryland  who  are 
called  “American”  Methodists.  On  what  author¬ 
ity  this  discrimination  is  based  does  not  appear. 
The  Minutes  of  the  Conference  as  printed  give 
it  no  such  title.  It  is  simply  called:  Minutes  of 
some  conversations  between  the  Preachers  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  Rev .  Mr .  John  Wesley ,  Phila¬ 
delphia,  June ,  1773.  The  list  of  appointments 
includes  the  names  of  Strawbridge,  Watters,  and 
Williams,  who  were  not  present.  Doctor  Buckley 
says:  “At  that  time  the  Methodists  of  America 
regarded  themselves  as  much  under  the  direction 
of  Wesley  as  did  those  of  Europe,  relying  upon 
him  to  send  them  preachers  and  such  directions 
as  he  might  deem  necessary.”2 

There  is  no  evidence  that  Strawbridge  and  his 
followers  in  Maryland  ever  refused  to  recognize 
the  Philadelphia  Conference,  or  to  receive  the 
English  preachers,  either  before  or  after  the  Con¬ 
ference  of  1773.  Captain  Webb,  Joseph  Pilmoor, 
Richard  Boardman,  Francis  Asbury,  Robert  Wil¬ 
liams,  and  John  King  were  apparently  welcome. 
Francis  Asbury  took  up  work  in  Baltimore  early 
in  1773.  Little  of  permanent  value  had  been 
accomplished  there.  No  houses  had  been  open 
to  preaching,  services  having  been  held  in  market 

2  A  History  of  Methodists  in  the  United  States,  pp.  141,  142. 

49 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


places  or  on  street  corners.  Asbury  changed  all 
this,  bringing  order  and  system  out  of  chaos. 
His  circuit  included  Baltimore  and  six  counties, 
with  twenty -four  appointments,  covering  two  hun¬ 
dred  miles,  and  he  traversed  it  once  in  three 
weeks,  preaching,  exhorting,  classifying,  and  hold¬ 
ing  quarterly  meetings.”3  As  the  result  of  his 
labors  the  first  church  building  in  Baltimore  was 
begun  in  November,  1773,  and  a  second  was 
started  six  months  later.  Mr.  Strawbridge  did 
not  refuse  to  attend  Quarterly  Conferences  held 
by  Boardman  and  by  Asbury,  and  seemed  to  be 
in  harmony  with  the  proceedings  on  every  point 
but  one,  the  administration  of  the  ordinances. 
There  was  no  rift  between  Maryland  and  New 
York  or  Philadelphia  Methodism  and  no  disagree¬ 
ment  except  as  to  the  sacraments.  It  is  curious 
to  note  in  the  Priority  Report  that  Philip  Embury 
began  “Wesleyan  Methodist  preaching”  in  New 
YTork,  while  Robert  Strawbridge,  who,  like  Embury, 
came  from  Ireland,  where  they  both  preached 
under  direction  of  John  Wesley,  began  “Methodist 
preaching”  in  Maryland.  It  seems  quite  in  accord 
with  this  touch  of  prejudice  that  Boardman  and 
Asbury  should  be  charged  with  having  “assumed 
to  dominate”  certain  Quarterly  Conferences  in 
Maryland  and  “to  dictate  to  Mr.  Strawbridge.” 
Happily,  if  there  was  any  occasion  for  a  feeling 


3  History  of  Methodists  in  the  United  States,  James  M.  Buckley,  p.  134. 

50 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


of  resentment  on  the  part  of  Strawbridge,  his 
good  sense  and  devotion  to  the  cause  speedily 
overcame  it,  and  ten  years  later  Methodism  was 
organized  in  Baltimore  as  one  body,  with  no  evi¬ 
dence  that  there  had  ever  been  two  factions,  and 
on  John  Wesley’s  plan,  with  John  Wesley’s  four 
representatives  taking  a  conspicuous  part  in  the 
proceedings. 

The  sacramental  question  continued  to  be  a 
pressing  one  in  the  South.  At  a  Conference  in 
Virginia  in  1779  a  committee  on  ordination  was 
appointed  who  proceeded  to  ordain  each  other 
and  certain  others  who  administered  the  ordinances 
to  such  as  were  willing  to  accept  them.  Rankin, 
the  General  Assistant,  a  strict  disciplinarian,  but 
more  autocratic  than  Asbury,  was  opposed  to 
this  departure  and  gave  offense  by  his  arbitrary 
rulings;  but  the  latter’s  method  of  persistent, 
kindly,  and  tactful  pressure  proved  successful, 
and,  quite  unexpectedly,  after  an  earnest  season 
of  prayer  by  Asbury  and  Garrettson  separately, 
the  breach  was  healed.  Thus,  happily,  the  con¬ 
nection  with  Wesley  remained  unbroken  to  the 
end.  Forbearance  in  love  won  where  compulsion 
would  have  failed.  Through  all  this  troublous 
period,  when  it  was  so  difficult  to  enforce  dis¬ 
cipline,  and  when  finally  the  English  preachers, 
one  after  another,  under  war  conditions,  went 
back  to  the  mother  country,  Francis  Asbury  never 

51 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


swerved  in  his  loyalty  to  John  Wesley  and  his 
doctrinal  and  disciplinary  system,  and  though  at 
times  he  was  depressed  as  he  thought  of  the  only 
home  he  had  in  the  world,  and  longed  to  see  his 
father  and  mother,  his  only  kin,  it  was  his  deep 
sense  of  duty,  under  God,  to  the  Methodists  of 
America,  who  would  be  left  without  a  shepherd, 
that  decided  him  to  stay.  No  one  knew  them  as 
he  knew  them ;  no  one  could  appreciate  the  dangers 
threatening  them,  or  the  great  possibilities  open¬ 
ing  to  them  as  did  this  lonely,  homeless,  sickly 
man  whose  love  and  joy,  fears  and  hopes,  in  the 
deepest  travails  of  his  soul,  bound  him  to  them 
as  with  hooks  of  steel. 

The  issue  when  it  came,  after  the  colonies  had 
become  a  separate  nation,  was  met  by  Wesley 
himself  as  a  statesman  who  knew  how  to  do  a 
great  thing  magnanimously.  He  had  been  con¬ 
vinced  that  in  the  primitive  church  presbyters 
and  bishops  were  on  a  parity,  and  as  a  presbyter 
of  the  Church  of  England  he  did  not  hesitate 
when  an  emergency  came  to  assume  episcopal 
powers.  He  therefore  ordained  Richard  Whatcoat 
and  Thomas  Vasey  as  presbyters  and  Thomas 
Coke,  already  a  presbyter,  as  superintendent,  to 
have  authority  with  Francis  Asbury  to  superin¬ 
tend  American  Methodism.  So  at  the  Christmas 
Conference  in  Baltimore,  in  1784,  Wesley’s  plan 
was  carried  out,  Asbury  was  elected  superintend- 

52 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


ent,  or  bishop,  and  was  ordained  deacon  and  elder 
and  consecrated  bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal  Church.  It  was  surely  worth  while  to  wait 
patiently,  for  less  than  a  score  of  years,  in  the 
society  stage,  without  an  ordained  ministry  and 
without  the  sacraments,  to  come  so  happily  into 
a  heritage  that  nobody  is  disposed  to  depreciate. 
The  societies  in  America  had  from  the  first  the 
same  rights  and  privileges  as  those  in  England. 
Both  Wesley  and  his  people  were  persecuted  and 
disowned  by  the  Church  of  England,  and  condi¬ 
tions  in  America  were  no  worse.  Bishop  Asbury 
accepted  his  new  responsibilities  with  no  fret  of 
mind  or  of  conscience  as  to  whether  he  was  in  the 
apostolic  succession,  the  claim  to  which  has 
never  brought  the  Church  of  England  into  close 
relations  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  has  the 
real  thing,  if  any  church  has  it,  though  it  has 
been  a  barrier  to  Anglican  recognition  of  the  great 
body  of  evangelical  Christians  of  the  world. 

Before  passing  on  from  the  beginnings  of  Amer¬ 
ican  Methodism  it  will  be  proper  to  give  some 
attention  to  the  question  of  priority,  which  has 
been  under  discussion  many  years.  Who  organ¬ 
ized  the  first  Methodist  society,  Philip  Embury 
in  New  York  or  Robert  Strawbridge  in  Maryland? 
It  can  hardly  be  considered  a  matter  of  great 
moment,  but  it  is  certainly  one  of  interest.  With 
the  purpose  of  securing  a  final  definite  decision 

53 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference  memorialized  the 
General  Conference  of  1912  to  provide  for  the 
appointment  of  a  commission  to  investigate  and 
decide  whether  the  honor  belongs  to  Maryland  or 
to  New  York.  The  commission  was  bipartisan, 
three  members  being  from  the  vicinity  of  Baltimore 
and  three  from  the  vicinity  of  New  Y^ork,  as 
required,  with  a  seventh  at  large.  In  November, 
1915,  the  Board  of  Bishops  took  action,  recom¬ 
mending  that,  as  “serious  objection  had  been  made 
to  the  work  and  the  composition  of  the  commis¬ 
sion,”  the  said  commission  defer  action  until  the 
approaching  General  Conference  “can  clear  up  the 
legal  and  practical  questions  involved.”  In  obedi¬ 
ence  to  this  action  of  the  bishops  the  three  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  commission  from  New  York,  regarding 
it  in  effect  as  “an  impeachment  of  the  fitness  and 
competency  of  the  commission  to  make  a  fair 
and  impartial  historical  inquiry  and  reach  a 
decision  that  shall  command  respect,”  declined 
to  take  part  in  the  investigation.  The  Baltimore 
members,  with  the  member  at  large  and  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  apd  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church, 
organized  as  a  joint  commission,  and  proceeded 
with  the  case  in  the  absence  of  the  New  York 
members,  and  reached  a  “unanimous”  conclusion, 
without  having  heard  the  case  for  New  York, 
finding  that  the  beginnings  in  Maryland  were 

54 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


prior  to  those  in  New  York.  Of  the  fourteen 
present  and  voting,  ten  were  from  Baltimore  and 
vicinity.  Majority4  and  minority5  reports  went  to 
the  General  Conference  of  1916,  and  were  referred 
to  a  special  committee  of  fifteen.  This  committee 
refused  to  accept  the  findings  of  the  majority 
report  or  to  direct  that  the  Historical  Statement 
be  amended,  and  declaring  that  the  question  of 
priority  4  ‘cannot  be  finally  determined  by  methods 
thus  far  employed,  or  by  a  commission  thus  con¬ 
stituted,”  recommended  a  commission  of  jurists 
to  hear  and  decide  the  case.  This  commission 
was  named  in  1923.  The  General  Conference 
accepted  and  adopted  its  committee’s  reports  by 
a  large  vote. 

Historical  questions  can  hardly  be  conclusively 
settled  by  a  bipartisan  commission,  in  which 
experts  sit  in  judgment  upon  their  own  cases, 
or  by  a  commission  of  jurists.  Jurists  may  be 
experts  in  the  rules  of  legal  evidence,  but  legal 
evidence  and  historical  evidence  are  not  one  and 
the  same,  but  quite  different.  No  decision  of  a 
historical  question,  like  that  of  priority,  can  be 
finally  settled,  even  by  the  General  Conference 
itself.  Such  questions  must  be  opened  at  any 
time  when  new  evidence  is  produced. 

So  far  as  the  authority  of  the  church  is  con- 

4  Origin  of  American  Methodism,  pamphlet,  J.  F.  Goucher. 

5  The  First  Methodist  Society  in  America,  pamphlet,  H.  K.  Carroll. 

55 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


cerned,  it  appears  to  be  in  favor  of  the  claims 
of  New  York  for  priority.  The  Historical  State¬ 
ment,  which  has  been  printed  in  the  Discipline 
from  the  beginning,  with  unimportant  changes, 
says : 

In  the  year  1766  Philip  Embury,  a  Wesleyan  local  preacher 
from  Ireland,  began  to  preach  in  New  York  City,  and 
formed  a  society,  now  John  Street  Church.  .  .  .  About 
the  same  time  Robert  Strawbridge,  from  Ireland,  settled  in 
Frederick  County,  Maryland,  preaching  there  and  forming 
societies. 

The  natural  inference  is  that  the  precedence 

of  Embury  in  the  statement  means  that  he  was 

before  Strawbridge  in  time,  but  that  the  two 

beginnings  were  not  far  apart.  On  behalf  of  the 

claim  for  Strawbridge  it  is  contended  that  the 

mention  of  Embury  first  has  no  significance.  But 

the  church,  through  its  General  Conference,  has 

declared  differently.  The  General  Conference  of 

«✓ 

1860  fixed  the  year  1866  as  the  centenary  of  Amer- 

%/ 

ican  Methodism,  and  in  response  to  a  Baltimore 
memorial  asking  that  an  earlier  year  be  named 
replied  that  whatever  may  be  claimed  for  Mary¬ 
land  Methodism,  “it  must  nevertheless  be  ad¬ 
mitted  that  the  society  above  mentioned  in  New 
York  was  the  first  association  or  organization  of 
American  Methodism.”  The  action  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1864  was  in  harmony  with  that  of 
1860.  The  early  itinerants,  Pihnoor,  who  arrived 

56 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


November  4,  1769,  and  worked  with  Strawbridge 
in  Maryland;  Freeborn  Garrettson,  born  in  Mary¬ 
land,  whose  first  appointment  was  on  Frederick 
Circuit;  William  Watters,  also  of  Maryland,  the 
first  native-born  itinerant;  Thomas  Morrell, 
Ezekiel  Cooper,  also  of  Maryland;  Henry  Boehm, 
Thomas  E.  Bond,  editor  of  The  Christian  Advocate, 
whose  parents  were  converts  of  Strawbridge;  Jesse 
Lee,  of  Virginia,  the  first  historian  of  American 
Methodism,  and  a  host  of  others  bear  testimony 
to  the  priority  of  Embury.  So  also  do  most  of 
the  historical  writers. 

The  historical  facts  about  Embury’s  arrival 
and  work  in  New  York  are  well  settled.  He  landed 
in  New  York,  with  a  numerous  company,  includ¬ 
ing  members  of  his  Irish  class,  August  10,  1760; 
advertised  as  a  teacher  in  March,  1761;  applied 
to  the  governor  of  New  York  Colony,  with  a  num¬ 
ber  of  others,  for  a  patent  of  land,  February  1, 
1763;  preached  in  his  own  house  the  middle  of 
October,  1766,  and  organized  a  class;  formed  a 
society  at  the  end  of  the  month;  bought  a  lot  in 
March,  1768,  built  a  church  on  it  and  dedicated 
it  October  30,  1768.6 

If  it  be  asked  when  Robert  Strawbridge  left 
Ireland,  and  where  and  when  he  landed  in  America, 
there  are  no  records  to  answer.  Methodist  his¬ 
torians  in  Ireland  do  not  support  the  supposition 


6  The  First  Methodist  Society  in  America,  H.  K.  Carroll,  pp.  49-51. 

57 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


that  he  left  Ireland  as  early  as  1759  or  1760. 
Crook’s7  careful  and  searching  inquiry  leads  him 
to  the  conclusion  that  Strawbridge  and  his  young 
wife  left  Ireland  in  1766,  and  he  believes  it  would 
be  impossible  to  prove  an  earlier  date.  Crook- 
shank8  agrees.  The  difficulty  with  the  Maryland 
case  is  the  lack  of  records  and  exact  dates.  Straw- 
bridge  settled  at  Sams  Creek  “about  1761”;  bap¬ 
tized  Henry  Maynard  “as  early  as  1762  or  1763”; 
led  John  Evans  to  Christ  “as  early  as  1763  or 
1764”;  began  forming  societies  “as  early  as  1763 
or  1764.”9  These  findings  are  too  vague.  Asbury 
seems  to  give  positive  and  definite  testimony  to 
Strawbridge’s  priority,  in  an  entry  in  his  Journal 
at  Pipe  Creek,  May  1,  1801:  “This  settlement  of 
Pipe  Creek  is  the  richest  in  the  State;  Here  Mr. 
Strawbridge  formed  the  first  society  in  Maryland 
— and  America .” 

It  is  a  pity  the  date  of  the  society  was  not 
added;  it  would  have  been  the  key  to  the  inter¬ 
pretation.  If  Asbury  really  added  the  words 
“ and  America ,”  he  should  have  stricken  out 
“Maryland — and.”  They  were  unnecessary.  But 
if  he  meant  to  give  Maryland  priority,  would  he 
not  have  changed  the  Historical  Statement  (which 
was  from  his  hand)  in  the  Discipline?  And  he 


7  Ireland  and  the  Centenary  of  Methodism,  Rev.  William  Crook,  I860. 

8  Wesley  and  His  Times,  C.  H.  Crookshank. 

9  The  Origin  of  American  Methodism,  pamphlet,  J.  F.  Goucher,  p.  7. 

58 


LOG  MEETING  HOUSE 

Built  by  Robert  Strawbridge  at  Sams  Creek,  the  First  in  Maryland 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


ought  not  to  have  given  the  priority  to  New  York 
in  subsequent  letters,  the  last  one  to  the  General 
Conference  of  1816,  in  which  he  referred  to  what 
had  been  wrought  “in  less  than  fifty  years  in 
America.”  Less  than  fifty  years  from  January  8, 
1816,  would  not  run  back  beyond  1766,  certainly 
not  to  “1763  or  1764.” 

Ezekiel  Cooper,  an  early  itinerant,  a  traveling 
companion  of  Asbury,  and  the  successor  of  John 
Dickins  as  book  agent,  in  a  funeral  sermon  of 
his  friend  Asbury,  says  “the  first  society  was 
formed  by  Philip  Embury”  in  New  York.  And 
I  have  in  my  possession  a  compendium  of  Method¬ 
ism  in  Cooper’s  handwriting,  with  notes  on  the 
back  of  the  manuscript  indicating  that  he  used 
it  in  examining  candidates  for  ordination,  in 
which  this  native  of  Maryland,  who  became  an 
itinerant  in  1783,  distinctly  says  in  the  form  of 
question  and  answer,” 

12.  When,  where  and  by  whom  was  the  first  Methodist 
society  formed  in  America?  1766,  New  York,  by  Philip 
Embury;  about  the  same  time,  in  Maryland,  Robert 
Strawbridge,  near  Pipe  Creek,  Frederick  county. 

In  answer  to  another  question  about  the  erection 
of  meetinghouses,  he  writes:  “The  first  was  built 
in  New  York,  1768.  Another  was  built  near 
Pipe  Creek,  Frederick  County,  Maryland,  about 
the  same  time.”  Thus  this  distinguished  itiner¬ 
ant,  wrho  was  a  lad  in  his  teens  when  Strawbridge 

59 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


began  his  labors  in  Frederick  county,  stated  that 
the  first  society  was  formed  and  the  first  meeting¬ 
house  erected  in  New  York  and  the  next  society 
and  the  second  meetinghouse  in  Maryland  “about 
the  same  time.”  This  is  a  sufficient  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  the  Historical  Statement.  Atkinson’s 
Beginnings  of  Wesleyan  Methodism  in  America 
gathers  an  immense  amount  of  information  on 
this  subject  from  all  sources,  and  his  positive 
statements  are  trustworthy. 


60 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


CHAPTER  V 

ITS  DOCTRINAL  TEACHING 

HE  doctrines  which  Wesley  and  his  itin¬ 
erant  Methodist  host  preached  in  England, 
though  new  to  that  age  and  country, 
were  as  old  as  Christianity.  They  were  in  har¬ 
mony  with  the  teachings  of  Christ  and  the  apos¬ 
tles,  and  the  great  Methodist  leader  rediscovered 
them  and  taught  them  in  a  practical  way  to  the 
wondering  and  rejoicing  converts  of  his  day.  He 
asserted  that  they  were  in  harmony  with  the 
doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England  and  made 
this  clear  by  his  marvelous  facility  in  lucid  state¬ 
ment. 

It  is  worth  while  to  recover  from  an  old  letter, 
which  few  of  his  followers  of  this  century  have 
seen,  Wesley’s  putting  of  the  case.  He  wrote  to 
a  brother  clergyman  that  he  differed  not  at  all 
from  ministers  who  adhere  to  the  doctrines  of 
the  church,  but  only  from  those  who  dissent  from 
it,  though  they  own  it  not.  In  the  briefest,  clear¬ 
est  way  possible  he  proceeds : 

First,  they  speak  of  justification,  either  as  the  same  thing 
with  sanctification,  or  as  something  consequent  upon  it. 

I  believe  justification  to  be  wholly  distinct  from  sancti¬ 
fication,  and  necessarily  antecedent  to  it. 

61 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


Secondly,  they  speak  of  our  own  holiness,  or  good  works, 
as  the  cause  of  our  justification.  .  .  . 

I  believe,  neither  our  own  holiness  nor  good  works  are  any 
part  of  the  cause  of  our  justification,  but  that  the  death 
and  righteousness  of  Christ  are  the  whole  and  sole  cause  of 
it.  .  .  . 

Thirdly,  they  speak  of  good  works  as  a  condition  of  justi¬ 
fication,  necessarily  previous  to  it. 

I  believe  that  no  good  work  can  be  previous  to  justifica¬ 
tion,  nor  consequently  a  condition  of  it.  But  that  we  are 
justified  ...  by  faith  alone,  faith  without  works,  faith 
(though  producing  all,  yet)  including  no  good  work. 

Fourthly,  they  speak  of  sanctification,  or  holiness,  as  if 
it  were  an  outwTard  thing,  as  if  it  consisted  chiefly,  if  not 
wholly,  in  these  two  points:  1.  The  doing  no  harm;  2.  The 
doing  good  .  .  .  that  is,  the  using  the  means  of  grace  and 
helping  our  neighbor. 

I  believe  it  to  be  an  inward  thing,  namely,  the  life  of  God 
in  the  soul  of  man;  a  participation  of  the  divine  nature;  the 
mind  that  was  in  Christ;  or,  the  renewal  of  our  heart  after 
the  image  of  Him  that  created  us. 

Lastly,  they  speak  of  the  new  birth  as  an  outward  thing, 
as  if  it  were  no  more  than  baptism  ...  a  change  from  a 
vicious  to  a  virtuous  life. 

I  believe  it  to  be  an  inward  thing;  a  change  from  inward 
wickedness  to  inward  goodness;  an  entire  change  of  our 
inmost  nature  from  the  image  of  the  devil  ...  to  the 
image  of  God  .  .  .  from  earthly  and  sensual  to  heavenly 
and  holy  affections.1 

“There  is,  therefore,”  he  adds,  “a  wide,  essential, 
fundamental,  irreconcilable  difference  between  us.” 

1  Life  of  the  Reverend  John  Wesley,  Thomas  Coke  and  Henry  Moore, 
pp.  195,  196. 


62 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


This  succinct  statement  pours  a  flood  of  light 
upon  the  state  of  belief  that  prevailed  among 
the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  and  shows 
partly  why  Wesley  was  shut  out  of  its  pulpits 
and  sometimes  even  from  its  altars.  The  same 
views  were  doubtless  held  by  most  of  the  clergy 
in  America,  though  Deveraux  Jarratt,  of  Virginia, 
and  a  few  others,  preached  Wesley’s  doctrines  and 
had  converts.  One  of  the  other  kind  tried  to 
prevent  Asbury  from  preaching  in  his  parish  in 
Maryland,  threatening  to  invoke  the  law  against 
him.  But  Asbury  said  he  had  authority  from 
God  and  proceeded  to  urge  his  hearers  to  repent, 
the  minister  staying  to  hear  what  he  said  and 
then  telling  the  people  that  they  were  wrong 
to  attend. 

There  was  no  question  of  dissent  by  Pilmoor, 
Asbury,  or  any  of  the  itinerants  commissioned  in 
America,  from  the  Wesleyan  doctrinal  system  as 
preached  in  England.  The  early  preaching  here, 
as  also  the  later,  was  by  men  who  knew  by  expe¬ 
rience  how  salvation  by  faith  is  received.  Their 
own  testimony  of  the  passing  from  death  unto 
life  was  a  part  of  their  message.  They  could  say, 
with  Paul,  “I  know  whom  I  have  believed,  and 
am  persuaded  that  he  is  able  to  keep  that  which 
I  have  committed  to  him  against  that  day.” 

The  message  they  brought  was  a  message  of 
hope  to  sinners,  lost  sinners;  and  they  insisted  in 

63 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


the  plainest  way  that  all  not  already  saved  were 
sinners  and  therefore  in  the  lost  state.  They 
must  first  have  conviction  of  sin  and  the  need 
of  salvation,  then  they  must  call  upon  God  for 
mercy,  with  repentance  and  tears  of  contrition; 
believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  their  Saviour; 
accept  God’s  gracious  pardon;  confess  him  before 
men,  and  give  their  lives  to  his  service.  And  it 
was  their  privilege  to  know  that  their  sins  were 
washed  away.  John  Wesley,  in  a  talk  with  his 
saintly  mother  about  assurance  of  faith,  or  wit¬ 
ness  of  the  Spirit  to  forgiveness  of  sins,  found  that 
only  recently  had  she  known  of  the  forgiveness 
of  her  sins.  She  had  thought  this  knowledge 
would  not  be  given  until  death,  except  to  a  few. 
Her  father,  Samuel  Annesley,  a  clergyman,  had 
enjoyed  that  experience,  but  she  had  never  heard 
him  preach  it,  and  supposed  he  regarded  it  as  the 
peculiar  blessing  of  the  few.  This  was  one  of  the 
doctrines  revived  by  Methodism. 

Methodist  preaching  was  also  very  definite  on 
the  subject  of  the  terrible  punishment  awaiting 
lost  sinners.  Not  one  ray  of  hope  was  held  out 
to  them  of  the  possibility  of  repentance  after 
death,  or  of  a  limited  punishment.  Universalism 
was  coming  into  view  with  its  doctrines  of  resto¬ 
ration  and  reformation  of  the  penitent  after 
death,  but  the  Methodist  and  the  other  evangel¬ 
ical  churches  treated  it  as  a  dangerous  heresy. 

64 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


The  descriptions  of  the  place  of  the  lost  were  of 
the  most  lurid  character  and  the  torments  pic¬ 
tured  were  designed  to  arouse  the  indifferent  and 
lead  them  to  seek  salvation.  The  preachers 
quoted  Scripture  as  their  authority.  Had  not 
Christ  himself  used  the  most  realistic  language, 
and  did  not  Paul  say,  4 'Knowing,  therefore,  the 
terror  of  the  Lord,  we  persuade  men”?  It  is 
doubtless  more  agreeable  to  place  chief  emphasis 
upon  love  as  the  constraining  force,  and  choice 
of  a  holy  rather  than  a  sinful  life  as  the  best 
motives  for  becoming  Christians;  but  the  terrible 
backgroimd  of  shadows,  covering  the  unavailing 
remorse  of  the  wicked,  cannot  be  altogether 
neglected  if  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  are  to 
rule;  else  salvation  loses  much  of  its  meaning. 

It  was  fortunate  for  early  American  Methodism 
that,  not  having  college  men  to  make  preachers 
of,  they  were  able  to  train  converts  in  the  school 
of  experience.  Beginning  with  conversion,  they 
entered  immediately  into  practice  in  prayer  and 
witnessing;  developing  the  spiritual  life  in  avoid¬ 
ing  evil  and  doing  good,  in  resisting  temptation 
and  seeking  service,  in  inviting  others  to  accept 
Christ;  in  exhorting  to  small  gatherings,  in  preach¬ 
ing  as  supplies — that  was  an  admirable  substi¬ 
tute,  at  least,  for  the  production  in  educational 
institutions  of  efficient  evangelists.  For  nearly 
twenty  years  there  were  no  churches,  only  so- 

65 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


cieties  and  classes;  few  meetinghouses,  mostly 
private  homes,  barns,  courthouses,  barrooms, 
opened  to  preaching,  and  the  written,  finished 
sermon  would  have  been  incongruous,  almost 
absurd.  Most  of  the  preaching  was  without  the 
aid  of  pulpits  and  the  formal  manuscript  would 
have  been  strange  and  ineffective  at  the  informal 
meetings.  Evangelism  must  be  simple,  plain, 
direct  in  its  approach,  heart-to-heart  in  its  ap¬ 
peals,  and  in  everyday  language.  Cold  logic  is 
not  its  best  medium,  but  persuasion,  entreaty. 
Peter  did  not  read  his  testimony,  but,  relying  on 
the  Spirit,  whose  descent  a  few  days  previously 
had  shaken  the  vast  assembly,  spoke  from  the 
heart  in  testimony  of  what  he  had  seen  and  heard 
and  knew.  Whitefield  spoke  in  the  same  way, 
and  his  chaste  and  beautiful  language  was  not 
foreign  to  one  of  those  rare  prophets  of  God  whose 
burning  eloquence  few  generations  are  privileged 
to  hear. 

The  first  great  need  of  the  people  of  the  col¬ 
onies  was  to  be  called  to  repentance  by  men  of 
themselves  who  had  just  passed  through  the 
experience.  After  converts  were  secured  they 
must  be  led  in  the  new  life,  instructed  and  edified, 
and  this  work  must  be  done  by  pastor-preachers, 
and  pastors  came  in  good  time.  The  sermons 
were  generally  made  up  of  personal  testimonies 
and  appeals,  with  abundance  of  “Thus  saith  the 

66 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Lord”  as  divine  authority  enforcing  all  that  was 
said.  The  Bible  was  little  known  and  under¬ 
stood  by  the  masses,  and  the  preachers  did  great 
service  in  quoting  liberally  from  its  teachings. 
They  selected  familiar  texts  from  both  the  New 
Testament  and  the  Old.  Asbury  gives  the  texts 
for  many  of  his  sermons  and  also  the  outlines.2 

The  peculiar  doctrines  of  Methodism  were 
made  more  acceptable  to  the  masses  by  the 
declaration  in  the  most  outspoken  way  of  the 
freedom  of  the  will.  Calvinism  of  the  strict  type 
prevailed  among  the  Congregationalists,  Presby¬ 
terians,  and  Reformed  and  also  in  most  of  the 
Baptist  churches.  The  doctrines  of  unconditional 
election,  reprobation,  final  perseverance,  and  the 
like,  were  preached  from  the  pulpit.  Whitefield 
accepted  them  and  attacked  his  best  friend,  John 
Wesley,  for  his  Arminian  attitude.  Wesley  did 
not  publicly  oppose  them  until  Whitefield  and 
others  forced  him  to  declare  his  views.  Conflict 
in  America  could  not  be  avoided  when  Methodism 
rose  into  prominence.  Asbury  makes  reference  to 
the  subject  frequently  in  his  Journal.  He  speaks 
with  approval  of  a  book  against  predestination 
which  he  had  read.  He  reports  a  conversation 
with  a  Presbyterian  minister  who  held  that  con¬ 
version  preceded  faith  and  repentance,  remarking 
that  it  was  a  strange  reversal,  putting  the  effective 

2  See  Chapter  IX,  “Asbury  as  a  Preacher.” 

67 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


cause  as  a  result.  He  preached  a  sermon  on 
predestination,  reprobation,  antinoinianism,  and 
Universalism,  and  on  another  occasion  observes 
that  absolute,  unconditional  predestination  4 ‘nulli¬ 
fies  all  laws,  human  and  divine,”  for  if  men  cannot 
do  otherwise  than  they  do,  “why  should  they  be 
punished?”  He  continues: 

Must  quadrupeds  be  punished  because  they  do  not  fly? 
Believing  this  doctrine  men  might  ascribe  their  envy,  malice, 
and  most  cruel  inclinations  to  the  effect  of  divine  predes¬ 
tination  and  conclude  that  their  most  malignant  disposi¬ 
tions  were  eternally  decreed,  and  therefore  not  to  be  con¬ 
quered.3 

What  influence  Methodism  has  had  in  modify¬ 
ing  Calvinism,  so  that  what  it  is  now  is  a  mere 
shadow  of  what  its  former  advocates  tenaciously 
held,  it  is  hard  to  estimate.  The  old  controversy 
long  since  disappeared  and  the  present  generation 
know  little  or  nothing  of  it.  Dr.  Daniel  D. 
Whedon,  for  many  years  editor  of  the  Methodist 
Quarterly  Review,  also  of  a  series  of  Commen¬ 
taries,  and  author  of  a  volume  on  The  Freedom 
of  the  Will ,  was  a  doughty  warrior  against  the 
Princeton  School,  three  quarters  of  a  century  ago. 
In  controversy  with  Professor  Hodge  he  wielded 
a  keen  scalpel.  The  early  Methodist  preachers 
were  often  deficient  in  education.  This  led  Pres¬ 
byterian  ministers  to  undervalue  them  and  to 

3  Heart  of  Asbury's  Journal,  Ezra  Squier  Tipple,  pp.  115-116. 

68 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


say  things  about  their  lack  of  polish  that  were 
extremely  irritating,  so  that  discussions  on  Cal¬ 
vinism  and  Arminianism  were  not  always  in  good 
humor.  Bishop  Asbury  admired  the  Presbyterians 
for  their  respect  for  the  ministry,  but  was  nettled 
when  now  and  then  one  of  them  put  on  superior 
airs  and  looked  down  upon  the  Methodists. 

The  Baptists  were  stiff  Calvinists,  except  small 
bodies  called  Free  Will  and  General,  who  espoused 
Arminianism.  They  have  been  expert  contro¬ 
versialists  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism  and 
mode  of  baptism,  and  used  to  exchange  broad¬ 
sides  both  with  neighboring  Methodist  and  Pres¬ 
byterian  churches.  In  the  nineteenth  century 
controversy  ran  high  and  waxed  hot.  Interde¬ 
nominational  debates  between  champions  for  and 
against  the  scriptural  mode  of  baptism,  and  other 
controverted  questions,  were  held  in  the  South, 
lasting  several  days,  the  debaters  taking  turns. 
Some  of  these  debates  were  published  in  full  in 
large  volumes,  which  are  a  curiosity  in  this  age 
when  interdenominational  peace  is  unbroken  and 
deadly  armament  is  no  longer  thought  in  place 
of  the  pulpit,  except  as  directed  against  giant 
evils.  In  1843  a  debate  was  held  in  Lexington, 
Kentucky,  between  Alexander  Campbell,  of  the 
Disciples  of  Christ,  and  Nathan  L.  Rice,  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  on  baptism,  human  creeds, 
etc.  It  extended  through  eighteen  days.  It  is 

69 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


reported  in  a  volume  of  one  thousand  pages.  It 
has  been  said  that  every  argument,  for  and  against, 
can  be  found  within  its  covers.  Not  all;  the  dis¬ 
covery  of  the  “Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,” 
indicating  that  pouring,  as  well  as  dipping  was 
practiced,  in  the  subapostolic  age,  had  not  then 
been  discovered. 

A  certain  debate  in  Indiana  between  a  Method¬ 
ist  and  a  Universalist  lasted  three  days. 

In  the  course  of  the  debate  the  Universalist  painted  a  hell 
for  the  Methodist  champion  and  his  brethren  to  look  at, 
and  then  flung  into  it  all  the  human  race  that  orthodoxy 
excluded  from  heaven.  The  Methodist  replied  by  sending 
Judas  to  heaven  before  his  Lord  and  carried  all  liars,  lechers, 
seducers,  and  murderers  to  Abraham’s  bosom,  “all  bedeviled 
and  unrepentant  as  they  were.”4 

Among  the  controversies  was  one  with  the 
Shakers,  who  had  a  community  at  Busroe, 
Indiana,  where  they  made  perverts  of  Method¬ 
ists,  Presbyterians,  and  others.  Peter  Cartwright 
went  there  to  save  the  remnant  of  Methodists  and 
issued  a  challenge  to  the  Shakers  to  a  debate, 
which  was  declined.  Nevertheless,  the  proposed 
meeting  was  held,  and  Cartwright  spoke  for  three 
hours,  “until  the  very  foundations  of  every 
Shaker  present  were  shaken  from  under  him.”5 
The  champion  won  forty-seven  persons  from  the 

4  The  Rise  of  Methodism  in  the  West,  William  Warren  Sweet,  p.  52. 

6  Ibid.,  pp.  52,  53. 


70 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Shaker  community  and  enrolled  them  as  Method¬ 
ists.6  These  debates,  which  Methodist  preachers 
did  not  shun,  developed  in  many  of  them  great 
readiness  in  discussion.  In  New  Harmony,  Indi¬ 
ana,  the  Rev.  James  Armstrong,  an  itinerant, 
was  preaching  in  a  hall  open  to  all  denominations, 
when  a  member  of  the  Community  of  Rappites, 
interrupted  him  with  questions: 

“How  do  you  know  you  have  a  soul?” 

To  this  Armstrong  replied,  “I  feel  it.” 

“Did  you  ever  smell,  taste,  see,  or  hear  your  soul?” 

“No,”  said  Armstrong. 

“Then  you  have  four  senses  against  you.” 

Armstrong  then  propounded  this  question  to  his 
questioner: 

“Mr.  Jennings,  did  you  ever  have  the  toothache?” 

“Yes,”  said  Jennings. 

“Did  you  ever  smell,  taste,  see,  or  hear  the  toothache?” 
asked  the  preacher. 

“No,”  replied  Jennings. 

“Then,”  said  Armstrong,  “you  have  four  senses  against 

you-”7 

6  The  Rise  of  Methodism  in  the  West,  William  Warren  Sweet.,  p.  53. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  53. 


71 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


CHAPTER  VI 

HOW  THE  ITINERANCY  WAS 
ESTABLISHED 

Francis  Asbury.  He  began  to  itinerate 
as  soon  as  he  landed,  and  he  never  ceased  to 
itinerate,  except  for  brief  periods  by  force  of 
circumstances  beyond  his  control,  until  death 
overtook  him  on  the  road,  ending  at  once  his 
travels,  his  labors,  and  his  life,  March  31,  1816. 
His  consecration  as  bishop  only  had  the  effect 
of  increasing  his  itinerancy.  On  his  ceaseless 
rounds  of  travel  he  preached  daily,  held  class, 
society,  and  prayer  meetings,  visited  from  house 
to  house,  met  the  Conferences,  ordained  and 
appointed  the  preachers,  kept  in  touch  with 
them  by  letter,  and  collected  subscriptions  to 
make  up  deficiencies  in  their  support — in  short, 
combining  the  work  of  bishop,  itinerant  preacher, 
pastor,  exhorter,  class  leader  and  lay  official.  In 
the  discharge  of  these  manifold  functions  he  has 
never  had  a  successor.  If  forced  to  choose  a 
single  word  to  describe  his  vast  unceasing  activ¬ 
ities,  I  would  select  Itinerant.  He  was  an  itinerant 

72 


The  most  constant  and  effective  itinerant 
American  Methodism  has  ever  had  was 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


of  the  itinerants.  The  successive  steps  in  his 
career  as  layman,  local  preacher,  ordained  deacon 
and  elder,  consecrated  bishop  are  all  distinguished 
by  the  one  word  Itinerant.  He  was  not  the  first 
to  itinerate  in  America,  but  he  was  the  first  of 
all  the  itinerants  in  the  breadth,  the  quality  and 
the  quantity  of  his  labors.  The  title  “bishop” 
added  no  distinction  to  his  honors  as  an  itinerant. 
It  laid  new  and  heavy  burdens  upon  his  slender 
shoulders,  brought  more  insistent  demands  upon 
his  crowded  hours,  his  strength,  his  patience; 
heaped  more  reproach  upon  his  laboring  heart, 
made  his  sensitive  soul  the  target  for  shafts  of 
malice  and  misrepresentation,  and  burdened  him 
daily  with  the  care  of  all  the  churches. 

This  greatest  itinerant  of  American  Methodism 
not  only  itinerated  himself  but  caused  others  to 
itinerate  also.  No  other  man  exerted  such  con¬ 
stant,  resistless  pressure  to  establish  the  itinerancy; 
no  other  man  gave  so  forceful  an  example  of  the 
thing  itself.  If  one  particular  service  of  a  life  of 
singular  devotion  as  father  and  founder  of  Amer¬ 
ican  Methodism  were  to  be  selected  for  its  pre¬ 
eminent  value,  it  would  have  to  be,  I  think, 
Asbury’s  success  in  persuading  the  preachers  to 
itinerate.  The  conditions  of  the  age  and  country 
and  the  settled  pastorate  of  the  other  denomina¬ 
tions  were  against  him  in  his  determination  to 
bring  about  “a  circulation  of  the  preachers.”  The 

73 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


wanted  to  settle  in  the  cities  “and  live  like  gentle¬ 
men,”  by  which  he  meant  an  easy  life,  such  as 
no  man  who  rode  a  circuit  could  possibly  have. 
It  has  been  said  that  Asbury  himself  had  his  first 
appointments  in  Philadelphia,  New  York,  and 
Baltimore  and  that  it  did  not  become  him  to 
criticize  others.  But  Asbury  did  not  confine 
himself  to  cities,  but  went  out  into  the  large 
country  spaces,  and  always  had  his  chain 
of  appointments — twenty-four  in  Baltimore,  and 
lesser  numbers  in  Philadelphia  and  New  York. 
The  appointments  at  the  first  Conference  of 
1773  reflect  his  plan,  in  the  provision  that  Thomas 
Rankin  and  George  Shadford,  appointed  to  New 
Y7ork  and  Philadelphia  respectively,  should 
“change  in  four  months.”  The  next  Conference 
in  1774  required  the  appointees,  Francis  Asbury, 
New  York,  and  Thomas  Rankin,  Philadelphia,  to 
“change  in  three  months”  and  for  the  first  time 
appeared  at  the  end  of  the  appointments  the 
order:  “All  the  preachers  to  change  at  half  the 
year’s  end.”  The  peculiar  expression,  “at  half 
the  year’s  end,”  appears  once  again  in  1775  and 
not  thereafter,  and  no  reference  is  made  in  the 
minutes  of  subsequent  Conferences  to  changes 
within  the  year,  until  1780,  when  the  six  months’ 
period  is  named,  and  the  practice  of  changing 
in  the  middle  of  the  Conference  year  appears  to 
have  become  fully  recognized. 

76 


rsxasnrsrm  gaa^Eacargyfrgcgynafla <*gs^^sz-  a 


MINUTES 


OF  SOME 

CONVERSATIONS 

BETWEEN  THE 

PREACHERS 

IN  CONNECTION  WITH 

The  Rev.  Mr.  John  Wefley. 

PHILADELPHIA, 

June,  1773. 


T  H  E  following  queries  were  propofed  to  every 
preacher : 

1.  Ought  not  the  authority  of  Mr.  Wefley  and  that 
conference,  to  extend  to  the  preachers  and  people  in 
America,  as  well  as  in  Great- Britain  and  Ireland? 

Arfnv.  Yes. 

2.  Ought  not  the  dc&rine  and  difcipline  of  the 
Methodifts,  as  contained  in  the  miutites,  to  be  the 
foie  rule  of  our  conduct  who  labour,  in  the  connec¬ 
tion  with  Mr.  Wefley,  in  America  ? 

Anfiu.  Yes. 

3.  If  fo,  does  it  not  follow,  that  if  any  preachers 
deviate  from  the  minutes,  we  can  have  no  fdlowfhip 
with  them  till  they  change  their  conduit  ? 

Anfw,  Yes. 

The  following  rules  were  agreed  to  By  all  the 
preachers  prefent  S. 

1.  Every  preacher  who  a&s  in  connection  with 
Mr.  Wefley  and  the  brethren  who  labour  in  Ameri¬ 
ca,  is  fliiclly  to  avoid  adminiftering  the  ordinances  of 
baptifm  and  Ihe  Lord's  flipper. 

FAC-SIMILE  OF  MINUTES  OF  FIRST 
CONFERENCE,  1773  (1) 


4r  «k 


All  the  people  among  whom  we  labour  to 
be  carneftly  exhorted  to  attend  the  church,  and  to 
receive  the  ordinances  there  ;  but  in  a  particular  man¬ 
ner  to  prefs  the  people  in  Maryland  and  Virginia,  to 
the  observance  of  this  minute. 

No  perfon  or  perfons  to  be  admitted  to  our 
love-feafls  oftener  than  twice  or  thrice,  unlefs  they 
become  members;  and  none  to  be  admitted  to  the 
Society  meetings  more  than  tbiice. 

4.  None  of  the  preachers  in  America,  to  re¬ 
print  any  of  Mr.  Wefley’s  books,  without  his  au¬ 
thority  (when  it  can  be  got)  and  the  confent  of  their 
brethren. 

5.  Robert  Williams  to  fell  the  books  he  has  alrea¬ 
dy  printed,  but  to  print  no  more,  unlefs  under  the 
above  reftti&ion. 

6 •  Every  preacher  who  acls  as  an  afiiftant,  to 
fend  an  account  of  the  work  once  in  fix  months  to 
the  general  aflillant. 

I..  How  are  the  preachers  Jlationed  ? 

Hnfw.  New-Tork,  Thomas  Rankin,  7  to  change 

George  Shadford,  J  ii 
John  King, 

William  Waters. 

Francis  Afbury, 

Robert  Strawbridge, 

Abraham  Whitworth, 

Jofeph  Yerbery. 

Norfolk,  -  Richard  Wright. 

Peterjhnrgy  -  Robert  Williams. 


Philadelphia , 
Newjtrfey ,  ^ 


in  4  mons. 


Baltimore, 


1 


Qu'Jl.  2,  What  number  are  there  in  the  fociety T 

Jnfw.  New-York  -  180 

Philadelphia  -  180 

New-Jerfey  •  200 

Maryland  •  -  500 

Virginia  -  100 


1160 


FAC-SIMILE  OF  MINUTES  OF  FIRST 
CONFERENCE,  1773  (2) 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


The  minutes  show  that  the  term  4 ‘assistant”  was 
applied,  as  in  England,  to  those  who  were  in 
charge  of  circuits  and  that  of  “helpers”  to  all 
others  of  the  traveling  order.  In  the  minutes 
of  the  Christmas  Conference  of  1784  “elders” 
appears  for  the  first  time  and  “assistants”  for 
the  last.  “Deacons”  is  the  new  term  for  “assist¬ 
ants,”  and  preachers  on  trial  succeeded  the 
“helpers.” 

The  names  of  the  English  preachers,  Thomas 
Rankin,  who  had  been  appointed  general  assistant 
by  Wesley,  George  Shadford  and  Martin  Rodda, 
do  not  appear  in  the  Minutes  after  the  Confer¬ 
ence  of  1777,  they  having  returned  to  England. 
Francis  Asbury  did  not  attend  the  Conference 
of  1778,  held  at  Leesburg,  Virginia,  as  he  was 
in  retirement  at  Judge  White’s  house  in  Delaware. 
The  Revolution  was  in  full  tide,  and  as  an  English¬ 
man  Asbury  was,  of  course,  suspect  and  could 
not  appear  publicly  without  danger  of  arrest. 
His  name  does  not  appear  on  the  roll  of  this  Con¬ 
ference.  In  1779,  at  the  Conference  for  the 
Northern  stations,  held  in  Delaware,  Asbury ’s 
name  was  restored  and  he  was  one  of  eighteen 
who  agreed  to  accept  appointments,  notwith¬ 
standing  the  difficulties  feared  from  the  prejudice 
against  Methodist  preachers,  because  of  popular 
feeling  that  they  were  in  sympathy  with  England. 
The  Conference  took  action  to  the  effect  that 

77 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


Asbury  ought  to  act  as  General  Assistant,  Rankin 
being  no  longer  in  America;  Wesley  appointed 
him  to  that  position  in  the  fall  of  1783,  as  soon 
as  he  could  reach  him  by  letter.  Asbury  in  a 
letter  to  Joseph  Benson,  speaking  of  Joseph 
Rankin,  who  had  gone  to  the  British  in  Phila¬ 
delphia,  in  1777,  says: 

It  appeared  to  me  that  his  object  was  to  sweep  the  conti¬ 
nent  of  every  preacher  that  Mr.  Wesley  sent  to  it  and  of 
every  respectable  traveling  preacher  of  Europe  who  had 
graduated  among  us,  whether  English  or  Irish.  He  told  us 
that  if  we  returned  to  our  native  country,  we  would  be 
esteemed  as  such  obedient,  loyal  subjects  that  we  would 
obtain  ordination  in  the  grand  Episcopal  Church  of  England 
and  come  back  to  America  with  high  respectability  after 
the  war  was  ended. 

The  fact  that  preachers  were  stationed  every 
year  during  the  war,  and  that  they  increased 
every  year  except  in  1778,  when  no  Conference 
was  held  in  the  North  and  no  Northern  appoint¬ 
ments  scheduled,  but  one,  is  rather  remarkable, 
for  the  Presbyterian  and  other  denominations 
suffered  serious  interruption  of  their  church  work 
by  the  exigencies  of  the  war. 

Beginning  with  the  Conference  of  1773,  when 
ten  preachers  were  stationed,  the  number  in¬ 
creased  to  thirty-six  in  1777,  dropped  apparently 
to  thirty  in  1778,  to  rise  to  forty-nine  in  1779, 
losing  seven  in  1780,  gaining  thereafter  steadily 

78 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


till  the  number  eighty-three  was  reached  in  the 
early  summer  of  1784,  a  net  gain  of  seventy- 
three  in  the  eleven  years.  Where  did  the  seven ty- 
three  come  from?  From  the  circuit  school  of 
the  itinerancy  in  which  they  were  advanced  from 
class  to  class,  as  exhorters,  local  preachers  to  the 
traveling  order.  And  they  were  graduated  as 
exhorters  from  the  class  and  prayer  meeting, 
where  they  learned  how  to  speak  in  the  presence 
of  others.  n 

In  each  successive  Conference  one  may  see  the 
development  of  the  responsibilities,  duties,  and 
privileges  of  the  preachers.  In  the  first  Confer¬ 
ence,  accepting  the  authority  of  John  Wesley 
and  his  doctrine  and  discipline,  they  bound  them¬ 
selves  not  to  continue  in  fellowship  with  those 
who  refused  obedience  thereto;  preachers  must 
not  administer  the  ordinances;  they  must  advise 
the  people  to  apply  to  the  ministers  of  the  church 
for  the  sacraments;  they  must  see  that  non¬ 
members  are  not  admitted  to  love  feasts  and 
society  meetings  more  than  twice  or  thrice;  they 
must  not  reprint  Wesley’s  books  without  his 
authority  and  the  consent  of  their  brethren;  and 
all  assistants  must  make  report  once  in  six  months 
to  the  General  Assistant. 

From  the  very  first  the  preachers  began  to 
report  their  work.  This  feature  of  the  Conferences 
Asbury  always  valued  highly  and  expressed  a 

79 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


sense  of  loss  when  it  was  curtailed.  The  thought 
that  a  report  must  be  made  stimulates  activity 
that  there  may  be  something  worth  while  to 
report.  Another  duty  imposed  upon  itinerants 
was  to  make  returns  of  members.  Five  States 
were  covered  by  the  statistics  of  1773,  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland  and 
Virginia,  and  the  total  was  1,160,  a  little  less  than 
a  threefold  increase  from  Asbury’s  estimate  of 
316  in  1771,  which  was  probably  an  underestimate. 

At  the  second  Conference  in  1774  another 
feature  of  the  itinerancy  was  adopted — that  of 
admitting  young  preachers  on  trial,  the  term  being 
first  for  one  year,  a  little  later  lengthened  to  two 
years.  And  the  preachers’  support  also  received 
attention.  Each  was  to  be  allowed  £6,  Pennsyl¬ 
vania  currency,  per  quarter,  and  traveling  ex¬ 
penses,  and  preachers  in  full  connection  were  to 
have  the  use  and  ownership  of  the  horse  fur¬ 
nished  them  by  the  circuit.  Easter  collections 
were  to  be  taken  for  church  debts  and  relief  of 
needy  preachers.  It  was  a  common  occurrence, 
even  in  those  early  days,  for  preachers  to  go  to 
Conference  not  fully  paid.  Asbury  was  always 
sympathetic  with  these  embarrassed  men,  and 
helped  them  out  of  his  own  slim  resources  when 
he  could.  At  the  Western  Conference  in  Ohio 
his  feelings  were  so  stirred  by  a  desperate  case 
that  he  parted  with  a  shirt,  a  coat,  and  other 

80 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


garments.  It  is  humiliating  to  be  compelled  to 
admit  that  even  in  this  advanced  age  of  strong 
and  wealthy  churches  and  large  salaries,  preachers 
do  not  always  go  to  Conference  with  salaries 
fully  paid.  Doubtless,  if  the  grand  total  of 
arrears  due  Methodist  ministers  from  the  begin¬ 
ning  could  be  computed  it  would  be  enough  to 
make  the  present  superannuate  fund  quite  ade¬ 
quate  for  several  years.  Church  contributions 
being  purely  voluntary,  the  preacher  is  the  first 
to  suffer  and  the  doctor  next,  when  the  income 
is  pinched.  One  thing  is  sure:  the  preachers  them¬ 
selves  never  stinted  their  full  service,  nor  hesi¬ 
tated  to  sacrifice  their  own  comforts  and  actual 
needs  to  help  out  the  church  and  to  answer  urgent 
appeals.  The  Conference  of  1774  also  began  the 
examination  of  the  characters  of  the  preachers, 
another  feature  of  the  itinerancv  which  was  of 

v 

distinct  value  in  preserving  its  purity  and  keep¬ 
ing  it  free  from  scandal. 

The  Conference  of  1775  proclaimed  a  general 
fast  July  18,  for  the  prosperity  of  the  work  and 
the  peace  of  the  country  and  made  provision 
for  the  expenses  of  preachers  from  Conference  to 
appointment  from  the  yearly  collection,  a  custom 
which  was  followed  thereafter.  The  number  of 
members  at  the  previous  Conference,  2,078,  nearly 
double  that  of  1773,  was  3,148  at  this  Conference, 
a  gain  of  more  than  fifty  per  cent.  Thus  the 

81 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


itinerants,  many  of  whom  were  new,  came  to 
Conference  bringing  their  sheaves  with  them,  and 
making  full  proof  of  their  ministry.  Even  under 
the  untoward  circumstances  of  1776  a  further 
gain  was  made  of  1,773,  the  total  being  4,921, 
showing  more  than  fifty-five  per  cent  increase. 

The  next  Conference,  1777,  attempted  to  cor¬ 
rect  a  recognized  evil  of  that  age  in  eulogies  of 
the  dead  in  funeral  sermons  by  agreeing  that 
they  would  preach  no  funeral  discourses  except 
for  those  dying  in  the  faith.  The  gain  of  mem¬ 
bers  was  1,174  and  this,  too,  exclusive  of  the 
Northern  churches. 

Passing  over  the  Conference  of  1778,  of  which 
only  the  Southern  section  met,  the  Conference  of 
1779,  held  in  two  sections,  the  Northern  in  Del¬ 
aware,  the  Southern  in  Virginia,  urged  that  every 
preacher  meet  the  classes  where  he  preaches,  if 
possible,  that  the  children  be  met  every  fort¬ 
night  and  that  their  parents  be  questioned  about 
them.  These  were  the  days  before  the  Sunday 
school  had  made  its  appearance,  when  the  duty 
of  the  church  to  them  and  their  value  to  the  church 
received  little  attention.  It  was  also  determined 
that  a  preacher  who  is  able  to  travel  and  does 
not  shall  receive  no  quarterage:  a  spur  to  keep 
the  itinerancy  moving. 

The  Conference  of  1780,  held  likewise  in  two 
sections,  took  action  to  provide  trustees  to  hold 

82 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


the  property  of  the  churches,  which  was  increas¬ 
ing.  In  another  question  and  answer,  for  this 
form  has  always  marked  Conference  proceed¬ 
ings,  can  be  seen  the  diligent  hand  of  Asbury: 

Q.  Ought  not  our  preachers  to  make  conscience  of  rising 
at  four,  and  if  not,  at  five,  and  is  it  not  a  shame  for  a  preacher 
to  be  in  bed  till  six  in  the  morning? 

Ans.  Undoubtedly  they  ought. 

That  was  Asbury’s  own  plan,  and  if  it  was  a 
good  thing  for  him,  why  was  it  not  a  good  thing 
for  them?  Many  of  them  were  uneducated  and 
untrained,  at  least  in  the  Bible  and  its  teachings, 
and  Asbury  thought  no  man  was  properly  qual¬ 
ified  to  preach  who  was  not  well  versed  in  the 
Bible.  They  might  be  ignorant  of  all  other  books, 
but  not  to  know  the  Word  of  God  was  fatal.  And 
the  devoted  man  said  if  he  had  not  formed  the 
habit  of  early  rising,  he  could  not  have  read  it 
through  so  often  nor  studied  it  so  thoroughly, 
nor  had  sufficient  time  for  his  prayers.  The 
Conference  also  provided  that  the  wives  of  preach¬ 
ers,  “if  they  stand  in  need,”  should  have  the 
same  quarterage  as  their  husbands.  The  preacher 
being  in  the  saddle  nearly  every  day  and  from 
home,  must  leave  his  wife  and  family  behind 
him,  and  the  quarterage  paid  him  could  not  be 
stretched  to  cover  also  their  expenses.  Asbury 
was  never  married  himself,  not  because  he  would 

83 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


not  have  appreciated  the  blessings  of  a  home, 
but  because  he  was  married  to  Methodism  and 
must  give  every  waking  hour  and  every  thought 
to  its  welfare.  It  troubled  him  greatly  because 
so  many  of  his  preachers  married.  Not  that  he 
did  not  believe  in  the  institution,  but  because 
it  added  to  the  problem  of  support.  When  a 
young  preacher  took  a  wife  he  thought  of  him  as 
a  man  with  a  divided  mind  and  a  divided  duty 
and  also  of  the  additional  cost  it  would  involve 
in  quarterage.  He  speaks  of  it  often  in  his  Journal , 
saying  in  one  place  he  had  great  trouble  in  sta¬ 
tioning  the  preachers,  seventy  out  of  ninety-five 
being  married  men,  “with  children  and  sick 
wives,”  this  fact  greatly  increasing  the  claims 
on  the  Conference.  On  another  occasion  he 
exclaims:  “Here  are  eight  young  men  lately  mar¬ 
ried;  these  will  call  for  $400  additional — so  we  go.” 
Calling  to  mind  the  loss  of  ministers  who  had 
turned  to  the  world,  and  the  marriage  of  so  many, 
he  remarked  to  a  friend,  “The  women  and  the 
devil  will  get  all  my  preachers.” 

At  this  Conference,  held  in  Baltimore,  slavery 
came  up  for  consideration,  and  itinerants  holding 
slaves  were  requested  to  free  them,  and  other 
“friends”  were  also  advised  to  do  the  same  thing, 
on  the  ground  that  the  holding  of  slaves  “is 
contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  man,  and  nature, 
hurtful  to  society  and  contrary  to  the  dictates  of 

84 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


conscience  and  pure  religion.”  Asbury  had  an 
Englishman’s  curious  interest  in  Negroes  and 
always  sympathized  with  them  and  wrote  fre¬ 
quently  in  his  Journal  against  slavery.  Another 
evil,  distilling,  was  also  condemned  and  it  was 
agreed  that  “our  friends”  who  will  not  renounce 
the  practice  of  wasting  good  grain  should  be 
disowned.  Both  of  these  questions — slavery  and 
the  liquor  traffic — were  to  become  burning  ques¬ 
tions,  involving  the  very  life  of  the  nation.  The 
testimony  of  Methodism  never  became  uncertain 
on  the  liquor  evil,  but  the  attempt  to  keep  the 
traveling  preachers  free  from  slave-holding  was  to 
divide  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  near  the 
close  of  the  next  half  century,  the  most  momen¬ 
tous  division  any  denomination  in  America  has 
suffered. 

The  Conference  of  1782  unanimously  chose 
“Brother  Asbury  to  act  according  to  Mr.  Wesley’s 
original  appointment  and  preside  over  the  Amer¬ 
ican  Conferences  and  the  whole  work.”  This 
was  a  notable  tribute  of  personal  affection  and 
esteem  and  also  a  recognition  of  the  man’s  sterling 
character  as  an  impartial  and  able  executive  that 
must  have  been  exceedingly  grateful  to  him. 
Doubtless  he  was  an  autocrat  (so  was  John 
Wesley),  but  an  autocrat  was  needed  to  bring 
order  and  discipline  out  of  chaotic  and  inchoate 
conditions;  but  Asbury  exercised  autocratic  powers 

85 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


firmly,  and  not  harshly,  and  was  so  saintly  in 
his  austere  life  that  it  was  not  always  hard  to 
bow  to  his  will. 

The  Conference  of  the  early  part  of  1784  re¬ 
ported  14,988  members,  indicating  that  the  anom¬ 
alous  condition  of  the  societies,  with  no  ordained 
ministers  to  administer  the  ordinances,  with  the 
war  and  its  hindrances  and  losses  intervening,  and 
with  the  prejudices  naturally  existing  toward 
England,  Englishmen,  and  English  institutions, 
must  have  had  far  less  effect  than  might  have 
been  reasonably  expected.  It  is  a  tribute  to  the 
new  ministerial  plan  that  it  worked  so  well,  under 
the  most  unfavorable  circumstances  conceivable; 
and  it  shows  what  a  man  with  an  unalterable 
conviction,  an  indomitable  will,  and  a  genius  for 
persuading  men  to  yield  their  own  preferences  for 
the  general  good,  can  bring  to  pass.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  period  Francis  Asbury  said  there 
wTas  not  “such  a  circulation  of  preachers”  as  he 
would  like.  Did  he  not  feel  at  the  end  of  it, 
when  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  been 
organized  and  the  chief  itinerant  preacher  had 
been  consecrated  as  an  itinerant  bishop,  that 
there  wTas  at  last  such  a  circulation  of  preachers 
as  he  had  longed  for,  a  body  of  a  hundred  men, 
going  cheerfully  to  their  appointments  from  the 
Annual  Conference  on  long  circuits  and  changing 
in  the  middle  of  the  year.  Truly  the  circuit  as 

86 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


a  school  had  yielded  good  fruit,  and  the  itin¬ 
erant  plan  had  worked  well. 

Asbury ’s  methods  with  the  preachers  were  not 
dictatorial  or  overbearing.  His  predecessor  as 
General  Assistant,  Thomas  Rankin,  aroused  resent¬ 
ment  by  his  manner,  as  noted  in  Asbury’s  J ournal, 
and  would  have  brought  on  a  rebellion  among 
the  preachers  if  his  heavy-handed  rule  had  con¬ 
tinued.  Asbury  knew  all  the  sufferings  and  hard¬ 
ships  of  his  brethren,  and  was  always  sympathetic 
and  helpful.  He  felt  the  responsibility  of  making 
the  appointments  and  gave  much  careful  thought 
and  prayer  to  it.  It  was  with  a  sense  of  joy, 
almost  jubilation,  that  he  closed  a  Conference, 
if  he  could  say  that  he  had  had  little  trouble  in 
fixing  the  stations  and  heard  of  no  complaints. 
The  Rev.  J.  B.  Finley,  who  was  ordained  in  1811 
at  the  Western  Conference  in  Ohio,  told  of  an 
incident  in  his  own  life,  when  he  wanted  a  change 
of  appointment  and  did  not  get  it.  He  said: 

Brother  Asbury  said  to  the  preachers,  “Brethren,  if  any 
of  you  shall  have  anything  peculiar  in  your  circumstances 
that  should  be  known  to  the  superintendent  in  making  your 
appointment,  if  you  will  drop  me  a  note,  I  will,  as  far  as  will 
be  compatible  with  the  great  interests  of  the  church,  endeavor 
to  accommodate  you.”  I  had  a  great  desire  to  go  West, 
because  I  had  relatives,  which  called  me  in  that  direction, 
and  it  would  be  more  pleasant  to  be  with  them;  so  I  sat 
down  and  addressed  a  polite  note  to  the  bishop  requesting 
him  to  send  me  West.  My  request  was  not  granted.  I 

87 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


was  sent  a  hundred  miles  East.  I  said  to  him:  “If  that’s 
the  way  you  answer  prayers,  you  will  get  no  more  prayers 
from  me.” 

“Well,”  he  said,  “be  a  good  son,  James,  and  all  things  will 
work  together  for  good.” 

Such  incidents  have  not  been  rare  in  the  his¬ 
tory  of  the  itinerancy,  and  are  not  to  be  inter¬ 
preted  as  due  to  an  arbitrary  exercise  of  power. 
Many  considerations  enter  into  the  making  of 
appointments,  and  any  bishop  worthy  of  the 
office  must  sometimes  reach  decisions  that  may 
be  called  hard  by  the  man  affected  to  whom  all 
the  circumstances  in  the  case  cannot  be  made 
known.  In  the  days  of  Asbury  and  his  coadjutors, 
ministers  were  always  prepared  for  surprises,  not 
knowing  where  they  were  to  go,  often,  until  the 
appointments  were  announced.  Such  surprises 
are  not  unknown  in  these  days  when  representa¬ 
tives  of  churches,  as  well  as  the  preachers,  have 
access  to  the  bishop  with  their  requests. 

In  the  early  period  of  the  itinerancy  many 
preachers  for  various  reasons  located.  Straw- 
bridge  did  this  after  less  than  a  decade  of  active 
service. 

The  difficulty  of  maintaining  the  time  limit, 
without  having  it  fixed  by  a  definite  law,  soon 
became  too  great  even  for  the  bishop  of  the 
indomitable  will.  The  tendency  to  extend  the 
term  was  strong,  and  exceptional  cases  began  to 

88 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 

arise  and  trouble  the  appointing  power.  While 
New  York  was  in  the  hands  of  the  British  no 
change  could  be  made  in  the  appointment  to 
W  esley  Church.  Samuel  Spraggs  being  already 
there  served  the  charge  five  years  in  succession, 
and  it  seemed  best  to  appoint  him  for  a  sixth 
year,  making  a  rather  serious  precedent.  Wesley 
had  written  Asbury  in  1785  to  say  that  a  three- 
year  term  seemed  to  him  rather  dangerous.  It 
was,  he  said,  “A  vehement  alteration  in  the  Meth¬ 
odist  discipline.  We  have  no  such  custom  in 
England,  Scotland,  or  Ireland.”  Asbury,  in  a 
letter  to  Thomas  Morrell  in  1793,  expressed  the 
conviction  that  there  ought  to  be  a  change  gen¬ 
erally  of  presiding  elders  and  others,  but  there 
were,  he  admitted,  great  difficulties.  He  had 
in  mind  the  great  importance  of  having  in  every 
large  church  able  men  who  knew  the  discipline 
and  how  to  enforce  it.  Some  years  later  a  case 
arose  in  Albany  which  caused  the  bishop  much 
trouble.  A  preacher,  very  acceptable  to  the 
educated  class,  was  serving  in  that  city,  and 
the  church,  through  a  committee,  expressed  the 
desire  to  keep  him,  and  were  allowed  to  do  so  a 
third  and  then  a  fourth  year.  Asbury  objected, 
but  reluctantly  yielded  when  told  that  removal 
would  disrupt  the  church.  But  he  did  finally 
refuse  to  renew  the  appointment,  the  result  being 
that  the  preacher  left  the  denomination.  One  or 

89 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


two  similar  cases  occurred,  and  then  the  General 
Conference  of  1804  adopted  a  rule  fixing  the 
pastoral  limitation  at  two  years.  With  this 
definite  law  behind  him  the  bishop  doubtless 
found  himself  quite  able  to  deny  requests  of  either 
preacher  or  lay  committee  for  a  third-year 
appointment.  It  was  thereafter  the  law,  and  not 
the  discretion  of  the  bishop,  that  settled  the  limit. 

The  question,  “Who  desist  from  traveling?” 
first  appears  in  the  Conference  of  1779  when  two 
ceased  to  travel.  In  1781  five  went  off  the  active 
list,  including  John  Dickins,  the  first  book  agent, 
the  next  year  three,  and  the  year  following  four, 
and  so  on.  The  question  was  changed  in  form 
in  1789 — “Who  are  under  location  through  weak¬ 
ness  of  body  or  family  concern?”  and  the  list  had 
swelled  to  eight.  Another  question,  never  there¬ 
after  to  be  omitted:  “Who  have  died  this  year?” 
Not  many  had  been  called  hence  hitherto,  but 
a  gradually  increasing  host  “have  crossed  the 
flood.”  “God  buries  his  workmen,  but  carries 
on  his  work,”  as  John  Wesley  saw. 

It  will  be  fitting  to  close  this  chapter  with  a 
statement  of  Nicholas  Snethen,  sometimes  called 
Asbury’s  “silver  trumpet,”  in  a  sermon  preached 
in  1841: 

We  have  always  regarded  Mr.  Asbury  as  the  father  of  the 
itinerant  ministry  in  the  United  States.  He  maintained  the 
ground  through  the  early  perils.  When  the  want  of  learning 

90 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


was  urged  as  an  objection  to  the  admission  of  a  young  man, 
Mr.  Asbury  would  reply  that  the  saddlebags  were  the  best 
school  for  traveling  preachers,  meaning  that  they  learned 
faster  and  best  on  horseback.  But  he  regarded  them  as 
learners  on  horseback,  and  no  master  was  more  ready  to 
rebuke  the  first  indication  of  presumption  or  indolence. 
And,  in  effect,  there  was  much  schooling,  though  to  super¬ 
ficial  observers  there  seemed  to  be  none,  among  these  youthful 
itinerants.1 

1  Centennial  History  of  American  Methodism,  John  Atkinson,  pp.  143-4. 


91 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


CHAPTER  VII 

OTHER  DENOMINATIONS  IN  AMERICA 


WHEN  Methodists  first  came  to  America  in 
the  second  half  of  the  eighteenth  cen¬ 
tury,  the  leading  denominations  of  Europe 
had  long  been  maintaining  Christian  worship 
here,  not  only  in  the  older  and  larger  settlements 
but  also  in  the  borders  of  the  wilderness,  and 
even  in  the  heart  of  the  wilderness  itself.  The 
hardy  pioneers  of  trade  sought  furs  and  other 
primitive  articles  of  commerce,  bringing  neces¬ 
saries  of  life  to  settlers,  and  also  fire  water  and 
firearms  to  the  eager  savage. 

Roman  Catholics  were  the  first  European 
comers  to  America.  Near  the  beginning  of  the 
sixteenth  century  Florida,  Texas,  old  Mexico, 
Louisiana,  and  the  Mississippi  region  were  visited 
by  Catholic  priests  intent  on  ministering  to 
immigrants  from  Europe  and  on  saving  the  pagan 
Indians.  On  the  latter  errand  came  in  turn 
Dominican,  Jesuit,  and  Franciscan  monks. 
Among  secular  priests,  the  names  of  La  Salle, 
Hennepin,  and  Marquette,  of  the  French  mis¬ 
sions,  are  wrought  into  the  annals  of  discovery 
along  the  line  of  the  Mississippi  and  elsewhere. 
But  back  of  all  this  the  Roman  Catholic  his- 

92 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


torian  claims  an  interest  for  his  church  in  the 
early  Norse  invasion  of  Greenland  and  speaks  of 
a  Catholic  bishop  of  that  section  in  1112,  well  on 
to  four  hundred  years  before  Columbus  made  his 
immortal  westward  journey  of  discovery.  And 
yet,  with  its  many  early  beginnings  in  various 
parts  of  the  country,  before  the  days  of  the 
Cavalier  settlements  in  Virginia,  or  of  the  landing 
of  the  Pilgrims  at  Plymouth  Rock,  or  of  the  com¬ 
ing  of  the  Hollandish  founders  of  New  Amster¬ 
dam  and  New  Netherland,  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  was  the  last  of  the  leading  denomina¬ 
tions  of  Europe  to  form  an  organization  in  this 
part  of  the  New  World.  It  was  not  until  1789 
that  John  Carroll,  of  Baltimore,  was  appointed 
first  bishop  of  his  church  in  the  United  States. 

Francis  Asbury  was  elected  and  consecrated 
bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
1784,  also  in  Baltimore,  five  years  before  the 
Catholics  had  any  one  here  competent  to  ordain 
men  to  the  priesthood.  It  is  an  interesting  fact 
that  the  first  American  Catholic  prelate  hesitated 
to  accept  the  offer  of  Cardinal  Antonelli,  papal 
secretary  of  state,  to  make  him  prefect  apostolic, 
as  a  step  to  the  office  of  bishop.  It  conferred 
little  distinction  and  promised  no  help  in  increas¬ 
ing  the  number  of  priests,  a  desperate  need.  In 
his  letter  of  acceptance  the  priest  spoke  of  the 
disabilities  which  adherents  of  the  Catholic  faith 

93 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


were  under  in  most  places,  “not  being  admitted 
to  any  office  in  the  State,  unless  they  renounce 
all  foreign  jurisdiction,  civil  and  ecclesiastical.” 
The  good  sense  of  John  Wesley  had  relieved  the 
Methodists  of  any  embarrassment  of  this  kind; 
but  the  Pope  could  not  do  as  much  for  the  Amer¬ 
ican  Catholics. 

In  Virginia  English  colonists  had  formed  the 
settlement  of  Jamestown  as  early  as  1607,  and 
their  first  act  on  landing  was  to  engage  in  the 
worship  of  Almighty  God,  according  to  the  ritual 
of  the  Church  of  England.  This  service,  con¬ 
ducted  by  Chaplain  Hunt,  was  under  an  awning 
stretched  between  four  trees  (“The  groves  were 
God’s  first  temples”)  “to  shaden  us,”  according 
to  the  historian,  Smith,  “from  the  sunne”  (it 
was  in  May). 

Our  walles  were  rales  of  wood,  our  seats  unhewed  trees 
till  wee  cut  plankes;  our  pulpit  a  bar  of  wood  nailed  to  two 
neighboring  trees.  This  was  our  Churche,  till  wee  built  a 
homely  thing  like  a  barne,  set  upon  crotchets  covered  with 
rafts,  sedge  and  earth.  We  had  daily  common  prayer, 
morning  and  evening,  every  Sunday  two  sermons  and  every 
three  months  the  Holy  Communion,  till  our  minister  died. 
But  our  prayers  daily,  with  an  homily  on  Sundaies,  wee 
continued  two  or  three  years  after  till  more  Preachers  came.1 

A  worthy  beginning  of  the  great  enterprise  of 
colonizing  the  New  World,  the  recognition  of 


1  History  of  Episcopal  Church ,  Charles  Comfort  Tiffany,  pp.  13-14. 

94 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Almighty  God  as  the  Creator  of  the  universe 
and  the  Ruler  of  men  in  his  great  out-of-doors 
temple,  simple  and  impressive,  as  the  act  of 
the  Pilgrims  at  Plymouth  Rock  thirteen  years 
later. 

In  Virginia,  later  in  Maryland,  and  later  still 
in  New  York  and  New  Jersey  and  elsewhere,  the 
Church  of  England  was  the  Established  Church, 
under  the  general  oversight  of  the  Bishop  of 
London.  Its  ministers  naturally  came  from  Eng¬ 
land — none  could  be  produced  here — most  of  them 
as  missionaries  of  the  Society  for  the  Propa¬ 
gation  of  the  Gospel,  under  whose  auspices  John 
Wesley  had  served  in  Georgia. 

One  of  the  weaknesses  of  the  colonial  church 
was  its  incompleteness.  The  door  to  the  ministry 
is  the  episcopate.2  No  bishop,  no  ordinations; 
no  ordinations,  no  native  ministers.  The  source 
of  supply  was  entirely  foreign,  hence  a  lack  of 
close  sympathy  between  ministers  and  congrega¬ 
tions.  The  War  of  Independence  naturally  va¬ 
cated  most  of  the  pulpits,  and  peace  found  a 
prostrate  church  powerless  for  reorganization,  for 
the  key  was  in  the  hands  of  the  church  of  another 
nation,  with  which  we  had  been  at  war. 

The  need  of  a  bishop  for  the  American  colonies 
had  been  recognized  in  England  as  early  as  1638 
by  Laud,  and  application  for  one  or  two  had 


2  History  of  Episcopal  Church,  Charles  Comfort  Tiffany,  p.  15. 

95 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


been  made  many  times,  but  always  to  fail.  After 
peace  came,  the  Rev.  Samuel  Seabury,  of  Con¬ 
necticut,  sought  and  obtained  consecration  from 
the  bishops  of  Scotland,  November  14,  1784,  at 
Aberdeen.  That  was  earlier  than  the  consecra¬ 
tion  of  Francis  Asbury,  but  Seabury  did  not  reach 
Connecticut  until  June,  1785,  and  was  not  for¬ 
mally  accepted  as  bishop  until  August,  of  the  same 
year,  by  the  first  convocation  of  the  diocese. 
Charles  Wesley  saw  Bishop  Seabury  in  London, 
on  his  return  to  America,  and  expressed  regret 
that  his  brother,  John  Wesley,  had  not  waited 
a  little  longer  to  see  “a  real  primitive  bishop  in 
America  duly  consecrated  by  three  Scotch 
bishops/’  who  was  ready,  as  he  told  Charles,  to 
ordain  any  Methodist  preachers  who  were  duly 
qualified.  When  two  more  bishops  had  been 
consecrated  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
they  with  Seabury  sat  in  a  Convention  which 
completed  the  organization  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  Lhiited  States,  in 
July,  1789. 

The  Pilgrims  of  the  Mayflower  and  later  the 
Puritans  came  to  establish  4 ‘a  state  without  a 
king,  and  a  church  without  a  bishop,”  in  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  laying  the  foundations  in  New  England 
of  the  Congregational  order  of  religion.  It  was, 
like  the  Episcopal  Church,  in  other  colonies,  to 
become  for  a  long  period  the  Established  Church 

96 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


in  Massachusetts,  and  other  Eastern  colonies  with 
the  right  of  levying  and  collecting  taxes  for  the 
support  of  Congregational  churches,  even  from 
members  of  other  communions,  who  thought  it 
a  hardship  to  be  compelled  to  contribute  to  a 
second  denomination.  This  tax  was  levied  in 
Connecticut  until  1780,  and  in  Massachusetts  as 
late  as  1834.  In  1802  Bishop  Asbury  was  touring 
New  England  and  mentions  that  at  Needham, 
Massachusetts,  George  Pickering,  who  was  with 
him,  4 ‘stopped  to  demand  (the  return  of)  the 
church  rates  taken  from  the  Methodists,  amount¬ 
ing  to  one  hundred  dollars,  or  upward.”  These 
rates,  he  explains,  “were  for  the  support  of  the 
independent  ministers,  whose  forefathers  fled  from 
Episcopal  tyranny.”  Now  their  children’s  children 
were  providing  for  “the  support  of  the  gospel 
by  law.” 

Mighty  men  in  church  and  state  crowned  the 
history  of  New  England  with  imperishable  glory, 
though  the  spirit  of  intolerance  strangely  beset 
the  progress  of  religion,  even  under  Puritan 
ascendency,  and  persecution  of  Baptists  and 
Quakers  and  “witches”  attested  a  religious  zeal 
for  conformity  which  no  age  seems  to  have 
escaped. 

The  settlement  of  Manhattan  Island  early  in 
the  seventeenth  century  by  people  from  Holland 
was  not  to  escape  persecution  from  the  Old 

97 


FRANCIS  ASRURY 


World.  Lutherans  and  Reformed  and  Roman 
Catholics  lived  together  in  Holland  without  serious 
outbreaks.  It  was  the  West  India  Company  of 
Amsterdam,  with  trade  as  its  great  motive,  which 
was  concerned  in  the  settlement  of  New  York. 
The  island,  the  center  of  the  metropolis  of  America, 
was  purchased  of  the  Indians  for  twenty-four 
dollars.  It  has  the  most  valuable  real  estate  on 
the  continent.  The  original  purchase  price  of 
Manhattan  would  not  now  buy  a  square  inch  on 
the  narrowest  street  (Nassau)  in  the  section  where 
the  Dutch  reared  their  houses  and  shops.  The 
names  of  the  first  ministers,  Lutheran  and  Re¬ 
formed,  who  served  the  little  settlement  on  Man¬ 
hattan  and  other  beginnings  on  the  Hudson  and 
on  Long  Island  are  preserved  in  historical  docu¬ 
ments  for  the  honor  of  all  generations  to  come. 
But  the  names  “New  Amsterdam,”  soon  to  be 
changed  by  the  English  invaders  to  New  York, 
and  “New  Netherland,”  embracing  a  strip  of 
territory  extending  nominally  to  the  northern 
border  of  Virginia,  are  among  the  things  that 
are  lost.  The  Dutch  ministers  were  scholars  and 
theologians,  for  Amsterdam,  which  had  an  influ¬ 
ence  on  the  development  of  three  denominations 
in  America — Lutheran,  Reformed  Dutch,  and  Re¬ 
formed  German — was  a  seat  of  learning.  Prob¬ 
ably  Philip  Embury,  who  came  to  New  York 
with  his  Methodist  class  in  1760,  and  who  was 

98 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


a  Palatine,  attended  a  Dutch  Lutheran  church 
for  communion. 

The  Presbyterians — the  Reformed  Dutch  and 
Reformed  German  churches  belong  to  the  great 
Presbyterian  family — had  supporters  among  the 
Puritans  of  New  England  and  staunch  followers 
among  the  Scotch-Irish  immigrants  who  came 
from  time  to  time  from  Ulster,  Ireland.  Churches 
of  their  order  were  to  be  found  from  New  England 
to  Georgia  when  the  first  Methodist  Church  was 
gathered  in  New  York  in  1766.  It  was  chiefly 
in  Presbyterian,  Congregational,  and  Baptist 
churches  that  Whitefield  carried  on  his  evangel¬ 
istic  work.  Jonathan  Edwards  and  the  Tennents, 
of  New  Jersey,  were  quite  ready  for  hearty  co¬ 
operation  in  his  work,  and  a  distinguished  Pres¬ 
byterian  historian  (Doctor  Charles  A.  Briggs) 
calls  that  revival,  which  had  a  profound  effect  on 
Presbyterian,  Congregational  and  other  denom¬ 
inations,  a  part  of  “the  great  Methodist  move¬ 
ment.”  Francis  Asbury  often  met  Presbyterian 
ministers  in  his  constant  travels  and  preached 
in  their  churches,  and  heard  them  preach.  Some 
of  the  discourses  he  heard  impressed  him  as  dry 
and  learned,  but  others  were  full  of  life  and  power. 
On  the  whole,  he  was  more  partial  to  them  than 
to  any  other  denomination  and  gave  Presby¬ 
terians  preeminence  in  respectful  treatment  of 
ministers. 


99 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


The  first  Baptist  Church  in  the  colonies  was 
organized  by  Roger  Williams,  a  Puritan,  in  Prov¬ 
idence,  in  1639,  after  being  baptized  by  immersion, 
and  in  turn  baptizing  the  one  who  had  baptized 
him  and  eleven  others.  Their  views  as  to  the 
subject  and  form  of  baptism  gave  rise  to  perse¬ 
cution  in  Massachusetts,  Virginia,  and  elsewhere. 
But  they  increased,  nevertheless,  and  had  numer¬ 
ous  churches  when  Methodism  began  its  career. 
Their  doctrinal  views,  especially  their  opposition 
to  infant  baptism,  brought  them  into  continuous 
controversy  with  other  denominations,  but  they 
have  grown  immensely  in  numbers,  and  they 
and  the  Methodists  share  the  honor  of  being  the 
two  most  populous  Protestant  bodies  in  the 
United  States.  Baptists  exist  in  three  principal 
divisions,  known  as  the  Northern,  the  Southern 
and  the  National  Convention,  the  latter  con¬ 
sisting  of  Colored  Baptists.  Adhering  closely 
to  the  congregational  order,  with  no  ecclesiastical 
power  to  enforce  creeds  or  confessions,  the  loyalty 
and  devotion  of  their  vast  aggregations  of  min¬ 
isters  and  members  to  their  doctrinal  system  is 
most  remarkable. 

The  Friends,  or  Quakers,  coming  hither  from 
England  to  escape  persecution,  were  long  in 
finding  peace.  Their  view  that  the  sacraments 
were  not  to  be  celebrated  with  any  outward 
form,  but  to  be  observed  inwardly  and  spiritually, 

100 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


naturally  brought  them  into  conflict  with  other 
denominations,  and  their  refusal  to  do  military 
duty  or  to  take  the  civil  oath  made  them  appear 
as  lacking  in  patriotism.  Their  ministers  received 
no  salary,  and  marriages  were  reduced  to  the 
simple  form  of  the  man  and  the  woman  taking 
each  other  as  husband  and  wife,  in  the  presence 
of  members  as  witnesses.  Even  in  Providence, 
where  Roger  Williams,  under  sentence  of  expul¬ 
sion  from  Massachusetts,  was  standing  for  toler¬ 
ance,  there  was  no  welcome  for  Quakers,  even 
from  Williams  himself,  who  had  a  sharp  contro¬ 
versy  with  them,  calling  them  “rude,”  while  they 
responded  that  he  was  “a  bitter  old  man.”  Of 
course  Friends  and  Baptists  were  particular  advo¬ 
cates  everywhere  of  religious  liberty,  in  the  full 
establishment  of  which  they  bore  an  important 
part. 

A  report  made  to  the  Bishop  of  London  in 
1761 3  stated  that  there  were  then  in  America 
1,084,000  persons  of  all  denominations,  Protestant, 
Catholic  and  Jewish,  leaving  only  60,000  un¬ 
attached  religiously.  It  would  be  interesting  to 
learn  how  many  this  early  census  gave  to  each 
denomination.  We  know  there  were  two  dozen 
or  more  Methodists  in  New  York  in  1761,  but 
how  many,  if  any,  elsewhere  we  do  not  know. 

*  The  Pioneer  Bishop,  or  The  Life  and  Times  of  Francis  Asbury,  William 
P.  Strickland,  p.  68. 


101 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


In  1775,  fourteen  years  later,  on  the  eve  of  the 
Revolution,  when  the  population  had  increased 
to  2,640,000,  there  were  1,970  churches,  of  all 
denominations,  and  1,461  ministers.  The  Con- 
gregationalists  were  first;  the  Baptists  second,  the 
Episcopalians  third,  and  the  Presbyterians  fourth. 
Methodists  were  still  one  of  the  smaller  bodies, 
insignificant  in  number  and  influence. 


102 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


CHAPTER  VIII 

MANNER  OF  ASBURY’S  DAILY  LIFE 


FROM  his  Journal  we  get  glimpses,  but 
not  full  descriptions  of  Asbury’s  daily 
life.  He  had  no  time  except  for  the 
briefest  notes.  Few  entries  are  free  from  state¬ 
ments  of  unfavorable  bodily  conditions.  He 
speaks  often  of  high  fevers,  followed  by  pro¬ 
fuse  perspiration  and  chills,  indicating  the  com¬ 
mon  ailment  of  those  times,  ‘‘fever  and  ague,”  or 
“chills  and  fever,”  on  alternate  days,  caused  by 
miasmatic  conditions,  a  disorder  which  sapped 
the  strength,  brought  on  nausea,  and  gave  great 
pain  and  distress  and  depression  of  spirits. 
Busy  people  yielded  to  these  attacks  only  so 
long  as  extreme  weakness  compelled  and  were 
up  and  away  as  soon  as  possible.  The  disease 
was  widespread  and  was  generally  deemed  inevi¬ 
table. 

Intelligent  care  of  the  health  was  not  one 
of  the  conscientious  duties  which  pressed  upon 
men’s  thought.  Asbury,  anxious  as  he  was  to 
“live  to  God  and  bring  others  so  to  do,”  and 
impatient  of  all  hindrances  to  this  divine  work, 
rode  through  wind  and  rain,  burning  heat  and 

103 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


icy  blast,  day  and  night;  waited  for  dinner  for 
hours;  often  did  not  apparently  insist  upon  or 
even  plan  for  a  regular  nightly  rest;  preached 
immediately  at  the  end  of  wearisome  journeys, 
often  on  an  empty  stomach,  and  yet  trusted  that 
God  would  in  some  miraculous  way  keep  up  his 
strength. 

It  was  considered  a  sin  to  ruin  the  health  of 
body  and  mind  by  drunkenness,  or  to  bring  life 
into  jeopardy  in  a  duel;  but  to  lower  the  vitality 
of  the  physical  system  by  overwork,  by  avoid¬ 
able  privation  and  exposure,  by  irregularity  of 
diet  and  by  filching  hours  from  nightly  rest  which 
the  laws  of  God  ordain  for  human  beings  seems 
not  to  have  been  deemed  wrong.  Hygiene  had 
not  then  formulated  its  laws  and  principles. 
How  much  pain  and  sickness  Asbury  might  have 
escaped  if  the  knowledge  of  to-day  as  to  the 
proper  care  of  the  human  organism  had  been 
as  accessible  to  him  as  it  is  to  us!  But  he  prob¬ 
ably  did  the  best  he  could  under  the  circumstances. 

The  medical  treatment  of  colonial  days  was, 
of  course,  often  ignorant  and  unskillful.  Med¬ 
icine  had  not  then  become  a  science.  Asbury 
says  (December,  1797)  that  the  smallest  exercise 
or  application  to  study  was  too  much  for  him. 
The  doctor  told  him  it  was  due  to  debility,  and 
the  patient  was  advised  to  take  “more  of  the 
bark”  (quinine),  and  fever  powders.  He  also 

104 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


took  a  concoction  consisting  of  a  quart  of  hard 
cider,  a  hundred  nails,  some  black  snakeroot, 
fennel  seed  and  wormwood.  A  wineglass  full 
of  this  tonic  was  to  be  taken  every  morning  for 
ten  days,  during  which  time  the  patient  must 
touch  no  milk,  butter,  nor  meat.  Blood-letting 
was  common  for  many  diseases,  and,  of  course, 
generally  added  to  the  debility.  On  another 
occasion  when  he  had  “putrid  sore  throat”  he  took 
physic,  applied  four  blisters  “that  drew  kindly,” 
was  bled  from  arm  and  tongue,  and  got  relief 
sooner  than  he  expected.  He  had  quinsy — he 
did  not  call  it  that — several  times  and  suffered 
greatly  from  it. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  Asbury  only  sur¬ 
rendered  to  sickness  under  compulsion.  It  is 
kindly  intended  by  nature  as  a  sign,  or  mentor, 
which  ought  to  be  heeded  intelligently,  but  in 
his  day  it  was  generally  resisted  as  long  as  failing 
strength  permitted;  and  this  is  not  an  uncommon 
practice  in  this  more  enlightened  age.  Reviving 
strength  always  called  Asbury  promptly  to 
resumption  of  active  itinerant  duties.  Nor  was 
he  idle  when  kept  indoors.  If  he  had  sufficient 
strength  he  worked  on  his  Journal ,  or  he  studied, 
or  he  wrote  letters,  or  he  read.  The  list  of  books 
with  which  he  became  acquainted  would  make 
a  respectable  library,  and  he  had  a  long  and 
growing  list  of  correspondents.  When  he  could 

105 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


do  nothing  else  he  4 ‘wound  broaches  of  cotton 
among  the  children.”  He  could  not  be  altogether 
idle.  Dr.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  a  Presbyterian 
biographer,  speaks  of  this  as  a  very  pathetic 
spectacle.  Worn  by  his  magnanimous  labors  for 
others,  he  says,  thinking  not  of  himself,  not 
able  to  read  or  study,  forced  to  an  idleness  which 
could  not  even  take  thought  of  the  many  churches 
dependent  upon  him,  this  servant  of  God  uses 
the  little  strength  he  has  in  winding  cotton  and 
speaking  to  children. 

Much  of  Asbury’s  time  and  strength  were 
taken  up  in  his  journeys.  He  was  almost  con¬ 
tinually  on  the  road.  For  the  first  few  years 
after  his  arrival  he  went  back  and  forth  from 
Philadelphia,  through  New  Jersey,  to  New  York, 
South  to  Chester,  Wilmington,  Baltimore,  and 
Virginia.  Then  his  trips  were  extended  south¬ 
ward  through  Virginia  to  the  Carolinas  and 
Georgia;  eastward  from  New  York  through  New 
England,  northward  through  New  York  State  to 
Canada,  and  then  westward  through  Virginia 
to  Tennessee  and  Kentucky  and  through  Penn¬ 
sylvania  to  Ohio  and  Indiana.  During  the  period 
of  his  extremely  busy  life  in  America  the  popula¬ 
tion  spread  far  and  wide,  and  as  Methodism  fol¬ 
lowed  the  people,  his  journeys  greatly  increased 
in  length  from  an  average  of  100  to  150  miles, 
to  several  hundred  miles. 

106 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Asbury  speaks  frequently  in  his  Journal  of 
the  extent  of  his  journeys.  Near  the  end  of 
1780  he  estimated  that  he  had  traveled  in  the 
previous  six  months  2,671  miles,  at  the  rate  of 
more  than  5,000  miles  a  year,  an  average  of 
about  14  miles  a  day.  Ten  years  later,  with  his 
labors  vastly  increased  as  bishop,  ordaining  dea¬ 
cons  and  elders,  baptizing  and  administering  the 
Lord’s  Supper,  Asbury  had  traveled,  according  to 
his  computation,  more  than  2,500  miles  in  five 
months.  In  the  early  part  of  1800  he  was  travel¬ 
ing  at  the  rate  of  550  miles  a  month.  That  fall, 
in  the  South,  he  traveled  1,000  miles  in  two 
months,  much  of  it  very  difficult,  attended  twenty 
appointments  and  paid  for  expenses  $50.  Though 
the  continuous  journeys  he  took  cost  him  so 
great  pain,  distress,  and  weariness  he  was  not 
content  to  live  anywhere  quietly;  when  years 
and  infirmities  increased  he  had  no  thought  of 
retiring.  “I  hope,”  he  says,  “I  shall  travel  as 
long  as  I  live.  Traveling  is  my  health,  life  and 
all,  for  soul  and  body.”  And  he  had  his  wish, 
dying  in  Virginia,  in  1816,  on  his  way  North. 

There  was  not  in  that  period  much  choice  in 
methods  of  travel.  The  iron  horse  had  not  been 
invented  to  revolutionize  civilization,  and  to 
reduce  the  time,  labor,  and  weariness  of  long 
journeys.  Man’s  most  patient,  faithful  friend, 
the  horse,  was  at  once  the  fleetest  and  the  surest 

107 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


carrier  of  passengers  and  freight.  There  were,  of 
course,  stage  routes  between  important  settle¬ 
ments  like  New  York  and  Philadelphia;  but  those 
who  had  good  saddle-horses  preferred  to  make 
their  own  arrangements  as  to  hours  and  rate  of 
speed,  using  the  space  in  saddlebags  for  changes 
of  garments  and  such  articles  as  they  might  wish 
to  take  with  them. 

Asbury  used  the  stage  often  on  his  trips  be¬ 
tween  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  but  seldom 
without  a  sense  of  discomfort  and  dissatisfaction. 
His  soul  was  vexed  with  the  coarse,  profane,  and 
unprofitable  conversation  which  he  was  compelled 
to  hear.  In  one  of  these  trips  from  Trenton  to 
Philadelphia,  1772,  he  says,  “I  sat  still  as  a  dumb 
man,  and  as  one  in  whose  mouth  there  was  no 
reproof.”  He  adds,  “They  were  so  stupidly  ignor¬ 
ant,  skeptical,  deistical,  atheistical,  that  I  thought 
if  there  were  no  other  hell  I  would  strive  with 
all  my  might  to  shun  that.”  These  mixed  com¬ 
panies,  as  he  calls  them,  always  taxed  his  pa¬ 
tience,  but  he  was  timid  and  seldom  felt  free  to 
remonstrate.  On  one  occasion,  waiting  till  nearly 
all  the  passengers  had  left,  he  spoke  kindly  to  a 
young  man  about  his  freedom  of  speech  and  gave 
no  offense.  If  Asbury  could  have  adapted  himself 
more  readily  to  such  circumstances,  he  could 
have  won  some  of  these  rough  fellow  travelers. 
One  of  our  modern  preachers  in  the  Far  West, 

108 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


the  Rev.  Mr.  Riggin,  told  me  of  interesting  trips 
in  stagecoach  in  Montana.  On  one  occasion,  a 
Sunday,  with  a  crowd  of  rollicking  passengers, 
after  hearing  their  stories,  often  coarse  and  pro¬ 
fane,  and  their  worldly  songs,  he  quietly  began 
to  fill  a  pause  with  “Rock  of  Ages,”  “Jesus,  Lover 
of  My  Soul,”  and  other  familiar  hymns.  The 
first  verse  they  heard  in  silence,  then  one  or  two 
joined  the  singer  and  at  last  everybody  sang 
heartily  with  him.  Subsequent  conversation 
showed  that  several  had  been  members  of  church, 
and  the  talk  became  like  confession  at  a  class 
meeting. 

Perhaps  nine  tenths  of  Asbury’s  journeys  were 
with  his  own  horse  and  saddle,  and  generally  with 
a  congenial  traveling  companion,  with  whom  he 
could  have  as  much  or  little  conversation  as  the 
circumstances  permitted  or  his  inclination  coveted. 
Among  these  helpful  associates  of  the  great  pioneer 
were  Freeborn  Garrettson,  Ezekiel  Cooper,  Henry 
Boehm,  Jesse  Lee,  Nicholas  Snethen,  John  Wesley 
Bond — all  distinguished  itinerants;  also  “Black 
Harry,”  a  Negro  with  a  gift  of  eloquence  that 
made  him  very  welcome  not  only  to  those  of  his 
own  race  but  also  to  white  audiences  on  occasion. 

Later  in  life  the  pioneer  bishop  used  a  light 
carriage  when  too  weak  to  sit  in  the  saddle,  but 
the  rough  roads  made  this  method  of  travel  too 
severe  in  the  newer  sections,  and  he  preferred 

109 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


his  saddle-horse — of  which  he  had  many  in  his 
long  itinerancy — to  vehicles.  One  of  his  horses, 
unknown  to  his  rider,  had  been  accustomed  to 
the  racetrack,  and  when  the  good  bishop  was 
journeying  near  the  scene  where  “sons  of  Beliak’ 
had  formerly  trained  his  mount,  the  animal  took 
the  bit  in  his  teeth  and,  dashing  on  the  smooth 
circle,  gave  his  astonished  master  a  specimen  of 
speed. 

Doubtless  Asbury  did  much  thinking  on  horse¬ 
back  but  little  or  no  reading.  He  may  have 
looked  up  and  compared  texts  in  his  well-thumbed 
Bible,  and  arranged  the  heads  of  discourses  in 
his  mind  while  swinging  along  over  level  roads 
or  smooth  bridle  paths;  but  a  private  room,  when 
he  could  have  it,  or  the  quiet  of  the  woods,  was 
what  he  preferred  for  prayer  and  meditation. 
He  regrets  often  that  he  has  so  little  time.  Riding, 
preaching,  and  class  meeting  leave  but  little 
opportunity,  he  says,  for  reading  or  writing  and 
not  always  enough  for  prayer.  If  he  could  pore 
over  a  book  on  horseback,  he  said,  as  Wesley 
did  in  England,  something  would  be  gained;  but 
“here  the  roads  are  too  rough.”  But  one  thing 
he  could  do  while  riding  the  long  road,  and  that 
was  to  pray.  It  was  his  habit  to  have  several 
ten-minute  communings  with  God  in  each  daily 
journey. 

In  various  places  in  his  Journal  he  speaks  of 

110 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


the  “present  plan”  of  his  daily  life.  In  1782  he 
writes:  “I  make  it  a  rule  to  spend  an  hour,  morn¬ 
ing  and  evening,  in  meditation  and  in  prayer  for 
all  the  circuits,  societies,  and  preachers.”  For 
some  time  he  prayed  for  each  church  and  itinerant 
by  name,  but  as  they  grew  numerous  he  could 
not  keep  up  this  practice.  A  few  days  after  the 
above  entry  he  was  a  guest  in  “a  cabin  with  one 
room”;  but  there  was  a  barn,  and  that  was  his 
“closet  for  prayer.”  At  another  time  he  had 
given  himself  to  prayer  for  the  work  seven  times 
a  day.  In  three  days,  soon  after,  he  had  ridden 
one  hundred  miles,  spent  five  hours  in  preaching 
as  many  sermons,  ten  hours  in  family  and  public 
prayer,  and  had  read  two  hundred  pages  in  Young’s 
works.  He  was  in  the  habit  of  visiting  the  sick 
and  families  in  society,  and  attending  class  meet¬ 
ing.  So  far  as  possible  he  had  prayer  in  families, 
in  boarding  houses,  taverns,  and  elsewhere.  He 
was  examined  in  Philadelphia  by  the  celebrated 
Doctor  Hush  and  Doctor  Physic.  They  would 
receive  no  pay,  except  “in  prayers.”  The  bishop, 
remarking  that  he  did  not  like  to  be  in  debt, 
knelt  then  and  there  and  prayed  most  impressively 
for  God’s  blessing  upon  the  practitioners. 

The  entertainment  was  often  of  the  most 
primitive  character.  After  spending  three  months 
on  the  frontiers  (1801)  he  writes  of  the  incon¬ 
venience  of  being  in  one  room,  with  one  fire- 

111 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


place,  with  half  a  dozen  folks  about  you,  some 
of  the  family — generally  large  in  new  countries — 
with  a  few  strangers  among  them  perhaps.  “Here 
you  must  meditate,  preach,  read,  write,  pray, 
talk,  eat,  drink,  sleep,  or  fly  into  the  woods,” 
which  the  itinerant  did  whenever  the  weather 
conditions  were  favorable.  His  soul  might  be 
vexed  with  the  unwisdom  and  thoughtlessness  of 
preachers  and  people;  he  might  be  cramped  in 
such  crowded  quarters;  he  might  be  disturbed  by 
unjust  criticisms  and  unreasonable  complaints; 
but  he  loved  the  beauties  of  nature,  of  which 
he  saw  so  much  on  the  long  road.  In  a  moment 
of  pleasant  meditation  he  writes: 

How  sweet  to  me  are  all  the  moving  and  still-life  scenes 
on  every  hand! — the  quiet  country  houses,  the  fields  and 
orchards  bearing  the  promise  of  a  fruitful  year,  the  flocks 
and  herds,  the  hills  and  vales  and  dewy  meads,  the  gliding 
streams  and  murmuring  brooks.  How  solacing  after  the 
turmoil  of  a  busy  city! 

The  man  who  can  see  with  an  appraising  eye 
the  glorious  things  which  God,  the  Supreme 
Architect  and  Artist,  spreads  with  lavish  hand 
over  earth,  in  sky,  on  sea,  has  resources  of  which 
neither  envy,  malice,  nor  distress  can  rob  him. 

Asbury  often  speaks  of  hunger  on  long  trips 
when  delays  and  other  causes  postponed  dinner 
for  hours  and  ravenous  appetite  could  hardly  be 
satisfied,  but  he  kept  up  the  habit  of  fasting  for 

112 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


his  soul’s  good.  In  1795,  while  he  was  in  Charles¬ 
ton,  South  Carolina,  for  several  weeks,  resting, 
reading,  preaching,  writing,  he  fasted,  as  usual, 
on  a  Friday,  but  remarks  that  he  cannot  fast 
oftener  than  “once  a  month,”  because  it  reduced 
his  strength.  Frequently  he  was  obliged,  he  says, 
to  live  on  a  little  bread  and  three  or  four  cups 
of  tea  for  eight  or  nine  hours,  while  riding  many 
miles  and  preaching  and  performing  his  ministerial 
labors.  One  would  think  there  was  enough 
enforced  fasting  without  adding  the  voluntary 
practice.  If  he  could  have  regular  food  and 
sleep,  he  added,  he  could  stand  the  fatigue;  but 
this  was  impossible  under  some  circumstances. 
Later  he  complained  that  fasting  brought  on  de¬ 
jection  of  spirits.  Of  course,  but  it  seemed  not 
to  occur  to  him  that  he  could  omit  it. 

When  he  had  reached  the  age  of  fifty-two,  in 
1797,  he  wrote  in  his  Journal  that  he  could  no 
longer  spend  ten  out  of  sixteen  hours  in  reading 
the  Bible  in  English,  or  Hebrew,  Greek  or  Latin, 
or  other  books,  or  write  letters  all  day.  His  bow 
was  weak,  if  not  broken.  But  this,  happily, 
gave  him  more  time  to  speak  to  God  and  to 
souls,  which  was  his  main  desire.  Wdiat  utter 
trust  and  devotion! 


113 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


CHAPTER  IX 
ASBURY  AS  A  PREACHER 


BY  common  consent  George  Whitefield  was 
the  greatest  preacher  Methodism  has  pro¬ 
duced.  He  was  a  finished  pulpit  orator. 
He  had  the  mysterious  power  to  hold  audiences 
in  the  grip  of  his  eloquence.  He  could  play  upon 
their  sensibilities  as  a  great  musician  plays  upon 
the  organ  or  the  violin.  He  knew  how  to  touch 
their  emotions  and  produce  the  smiles  of  joy  or 
the  tears  of  sorrow,  the  shout  of  victory  or  the 
groan  of  defeat.  He  could  bend  the  will  to  glad 
submission  or  arouse  it  to  stubborn  resistance. 
He  could  lead  men  whither  he  would.  He  had  a 
superb  voice,  with  the  range  and  flexibility  of 
a  violin,  the  variant  tones  of  an  organ,  and  its 
carrying  powder  over  great  distances  was  mar¬ 
velous.  All  its  wonderful  qualities  were  at  his 
command.  It  is  said  that  his  simple  enunciation 
of  “Mesopotamia”  could  produce  a  thrill.  Words 
came  to  his  lips  like  troops  to  the  bugle  note; 
and,  having  as  his  theme  the  greatest  issues 
known  to  man,  writh  his  own  soul  attuned  to 
harmony  with  things  divine,  he  delivered  his 
message  with  the  power  of  an  inspired  prophet, 
and  obedience  seemed  the  natural  and  necessary 

114 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


response.  Pentecostal  flames  lighted  his  tours  in 
America,  and  churches  of  all  denominations  were 
open  to  him.  He  was  not  one  of  the  band  of 
early  Methodist  itinerants,  but  his  evangelistic 
tours  prepared  the  way  for  them. 

On  the  evening  before  his  death  he  swayed  a 
great  audience  for  two  hours,  at  Exeter,  New 
Hampshire,  then  at  his  host’s  house  at  Newbury  - 
port,  Massachusetts,  as  he  was  about  to  retire, 
a  company  gathered  at  the  foot  of  the  stairway, 
loath  to  say  good  night.  He,  standing  upon  an 
upper  step,  candle  in  hand,  spoke  to  them,  with 
a  passion  of  love  in  his  heart,  until  the  tallow-dip 
burned  to  the  socket,  when  he  retired  to  his 
room.  When  morning  dawned  he  was  not,  for 
God  had  taken  him. 

John  Wesley,  his  associate  in  the  Oxford  Club 
and  his  lifelong  friend,  was  a  preacher  of  a  differ¬ 
ent  type.  Not  a  natural  orator,  he  was  never¬ 
theless  no  less  effective  as  an  evangelist,  and  his 
printed  sermons  have  had  millions  of  readers 
since  his  death,  and  exerted  a  lasting  influence 
in  Methodism.  He  was  not  an  emotional  nor  a 
dramatic  preacher,  nor  did  he  take  such  flights 
of  imagination  as  Whitefield,  but  he  had  a  won¬ 
derful  power  over  audiences,  and  so  pictured  the 
devastating  effects  of  sin  and  the  recovering 
power  of  the  gospel  that  men  under  conviction 
fell  to  the  ground  in  paroxysms  and  cried  out  for 

115  ' 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


mercy.  Wesley  never  desired  these  effects,  was 
disturbed  by  them,  but  knew  not  how  to  prevent 
them,  without  doing  harm.  He  maintained  dig¬ 
nity  without  stiffness,  and  spoke  fluently,  per¬ 
suasively,  fervently,  and  so  simply  and  clearly 
that  everybody  could  understand,  the  ignorant 
collier  or  costermonger  as  well  as  the  educated 
hearer.  His  preaching  was  informed  by  a  knowl¬ 
edge  wonderfully  comprehensive  and  accurate. 

His  moral  power  in  the  pulpit  was  immense. 
His  brother-in-law,  who  afterward  became  a 
clergyman,  heard  him  preach  from  his  father’s 
tombstone  and  wrote  him  that  he  had  desired  to 
speak  to  him  afterward,  but  had  not  the  courage 
to  approach  him,  as  “your  presence  creates  an 
awe  as  though  you  were  the  inhabitant  of  another 
world.”  “The  sight  of  you,”  he  adds,  “moves 
me  strangely.  My  heart  overflows  with  gratitude.” 

Whitefield  was  the  herald  awakening  the 
slumbering  conscience.  Wesley  bore  the  shep¬ 
herd’s  crook,  and  sounded  the  shepherd’s  call, 
seeking  the  lost  and  bringing  them  back  to  the 
fold;  leading  the  flock  to  green  pastures,  binding 
up  their  wounds,  watching,  warning,  directing,  and 
protecting  them.  Methodism  might  have  been 
little  more  than  a  voice  in  the  wilderness  calling 
to  repentance  without  his  organizing,  directing 
genius  and  his  wise  statesmanship  to  give  it 
permanence. 


116 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Francis  Asbury  was  apparently  the  only  man 
equal  to  the  situation  in  America.  Wesley  left 
no  successor  in  England  of  equal  power  with 
himself.  Fortunately  he  had  done  his  work  so 
well  that  men  of  less  genius  could  carry  it  on. 
Asbury  had  the  unusual  power  of  being  able  to 
project  himself  into  the  future  of  the  church  in 
the  things  that  pertain  to  “its  genius,  government 
and  institutions.”1  And  his  mind  “was  stamped 
upon  its  spirit  and  institutions  as  effectually  as 
was  that  of  Wesley  upon  English  Methodism.”2 
In  other  words,  he  was  to  American  Methodism 
what  Wesley  was  to  English. 

He  could  not  have  done  these  things  if  he  had 
not  been  a  preacher  of  more  than  ordinary  power. 
He  differed  from  Wesley  as  they  both  differed 
from  Whitefield.  Though  not  a  college  graduate 
with  the  wealth  of  learning  that  heightened  the 
effectiveness  of  the  father  of  Methodism,  Asbury 
had  by  prodigious  application  become  no  mean 
scholar,  and  spoke  with  knowledge  and  authority 
in  the  pulpit.  He  had  many  qualities  of  mind 
and  heart  which  go  to  the  making  of  an  effective 
preacher.  Equipped  with  a  clear,  musical  voice 
which  could  be  stern  with  warning,  firm  with 
authority,  soft  with  entreaty,  melting  with  pathos, 

1  The  Pioneer  Bishop,  or  The  Life  and  Times  of  Francis  Asbury,  William 
P.  Strickland,  p.  166. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  184. 


117 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


he  had  above  all  that  close  and  constant  com¬ 
munion  with  God  which  kept  self  in  the  back¬ 
ground  and  the  divine  in  control.  He  was  a 
man  of  prayer.  On  his  knees  before  retiring,  on 
his  knees  again  on  rising,  after  breakfast,  dinner 
and  supper,  in  pastoral  calls,  on  all  occasions; 
on  his  knees  when  an  abusive  letter  was  received, 
he  returned  to  his  knees  after  he  had  read  it. 

When  perplexed  with  momentous  questions; 
when  his  own  wisdom  seemed  unequal  to  the 
demand  upon  it,  when  unjustly  assailed  and 
wrongly  accused,  when  misunderstood  and  mis¬ 
represented  by  friends  and  foes  alike,  when  in 
peril  of  life  and  confronted  by  death,  when  his 
manifold  burdens  seemed  greater  than  he  could 
bear,  he  had  recourse  to  prayer  and  poured  out 
his  soul  before  God.  He  was  almost  constantly 
besieging  the  throne  of  grace.  Whether  on  horse¬ 
back,  in  coach  with  godless  men,  in  peril  of  Indians, 
or  mobs,  or  storms,  or  floods,  or  what  not,  he 
sought  earnestly  the  help  of  the  Almighty,  and 
did  nothing  without  consulting  him. 

When  he  rose  in  the  pulpit  he  was  the  prophet 
fresh  from  an  audience  with  the  King  of  kings, 
and  spoke  the  message  given  him  by  his  God. 
One  of  his  traveling  companions  said,  “He  prayed 
the  most  and  the  best  of  any  man  I  ever  knew.”3 

He  had  a  definite  object  in  preaching — the 


3  Freeborn  Garrettson. 


118 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


saving  of  souls.  He  was  like  the  fishermen  of 
Galilee — instructed  by  the  Master  where  and  how 
to  cast  the  net.  If  a  sermon  made  no  stir  among 
the  unconverted,  brought  conviction  to  no  sinner, 
led  to  no  decision,  it  had  failed  in  its  chief  pur¬ 
pose.  He  was  terribly  in  earnest.  He  was  like 
one  who  in  the  night  sees  a  house  on  fire  and 
everybody  within  asleep.  He  must  rouse  them 
to  their  danger.  Backsliders  and  indifferent  be¬ 
lievers  must  also  be  dealt  with  and  the  faithful 
exhorted  to  constant  vigilance  and  service. 

He  followed  Wesley’s  injunction  to  be  the  man 
of  one  book.  He  learned  Hebrew  and  Greek  after 
he  came  to  America  (how  he  ever  found  the  time 
is  a  mystery),  so  that  he  might  study  the  Word 
in  the  original  tongues.  He  read  it  through  again 
and  again,  read  it  also  in  Latin,  memorized  many 
passages  so  that  he  might  use  them  at  will  and 
gave  dignity,  depth,  and  power  to  the  message 
by  interlarding  it  with  telling  texts.  4 ‘Thus  saith 
the  Lord”  answered  all  cavils,  doubts,  and  dis¬ 
putations.  He  never  was  at  a  loss  for  an  appro¬ 
priate  text  when  sudden  exigencies  arose.  As  he 
said  himself,  it  is  “of  more  consequence  for  a 
preacher  to  know  his  Bible  well  than  all  the 
languages  or  books  in  the  world,  for  he  is  not  to 
preach  these,  but  the  W7ord  of  God.”  Henry 
Boehm,  long  his  traveling  companion,  says  it  was 
announced  at  a  certain  place  before  his  arrival 

119 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


that  he  would  preach  from  a  particular  text.  He 
learned  of  this  just  as  he  went  into  the  pulpit, 
and  this  was  the  text  he  took:  “I  speak  not  by  com¬ 
mandment,  but  by  reason  of  the  forwardness  of 
others,  and  to  prove  your  sincerity  and  love.” 

Of  course,  he  used  testimonies  he  had  heard  in 
class,  love  feast,  and  prayer  meetings,  and  his 
own  was  in  constant  evidence,  to  illustrate  and 
enforce  particular  points,  as  the  apostles  did  after 
receiving  the  power  at  Pentecost.  Each  became 
a  witness.  Why  not?  Witnesses  in  law  are  all 
important  in  establishing  the  truth;  and  by 
bearing  witness  the  great  historic  facts  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  are  to  be  made  known.  As  Paul  quotes, 
“In  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  shall 
every  word  be  established.” 

Perhaps  few  men,  so  constantly  before  the 
public,  have  suffered  more  from  natural  timidity 
than  Asbury.  He  speaks  frankly  of  it  in  his 
Journal ,  and  quite  frequently.  In  one  place  his 
“mind  was  in  chains”;  in  the  next  his  soul  was 
greatly  blessed.  On  another  occasion,  he  rode 
twenty  miles  through  rain,  and  in  fever,  and 
preached  with  freedom.  In  Baltimore,  he  was 
so  depressed  by  the  condition  of  the  people  that 
preaching  was  “harder  than  servile  work,”  and 
it  was  only  his  sense  of  duty  that  enabled  him 
to  go  on.  “An  ignorant  and  proud  company”  so 
depressed  his  mind  that  he  was  “almost  bereft 

120 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


of  words,”  and  was  greatly  troubled  about  it 
afterward.  On  his  way  to  Burlington,  New 
Jersey,  his  soul  was  filled  “with  holy  peace” — a 
good  preparation,  it  would  seem,  for  his  sermon; 
but  he  had  “a  dry  and  barren  time,”  because 
he  found  the  people  had  lost  their  first  love. 
Again  in  Baltimore,  after  a  delightful  conversa¬ 
tion  with  Otterbein,4  a  kindred  soul,  he  had  a 
good  time  preaching.  He  preached  two  hours 
at  Perigau’s,  in  Maryland,  with  delight.  A  few 
days  later  another  congregation  was  “very  dull” 
while  he  preached.  Of  a  man’s  praise  of  his 
preaching  in  his  presence  he  said  it  was  a  danger¬ 
ous  practice.  It  tended  to  make  preachers  think 
of  themselves  too  highly,  from  which  it  may  be 
inferred  that  he  did  not  welcome  it.  To  one 
appointment  he  went  in  “a  heavy  frame”  and 
found  his  “ideas  contracted”  by  the  presence  of 
deists  in  the  audience. 

He  hesitated  to  preach  in  the  Assembly  Cham¬ 
ber  in  Annapolis  because  of  the  presence  of  unbe¬ 
lievers,  but  his  heart  “melted  and  expanded  in 
love  to  the  people.”  He  had  given  himself  to 
prayer  seven  times  that  day  in  preparation.  At 
another  time  the  congregation  in  Annapolis  was 
small,  he  notes,  “and  so  was  my  power  to  preach.” 

4  Philip  William  Otterbein,  of  the  Reformed  German  Church,  who 
became  the  founder  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ,  and  assisted  at 
the  ordination  of  Asbury. 


121 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


He  speaks,  a  little  later,  about  his  work  among 
the  unawakened  being  “very  heavy.”  Preaching 
to  “a  gay  and  giddy  crowd,”  he  noted  that  few 
were  “serious  and  affected”;  and  later,  to  a  com¬ 
pany  of  three  hundred  in  Virginia,  among  whom 
were  “wicked  whiskey  drinkers,”  he  had  “little 
satisfaction.” 

And  so  runs  his  Journal .  He  seems  never  to 
have  entirely  outgrown  his  sense  of  discomfort 
in  preaching  to  unsympathetic  congregations  and 
in  churches  of  other  denominations.  The  thought 
that  people  had  come  to  criticize  and  treat  the 
message  and  the  man  with  scorn  often  caused 
him  to  have  “a  heavy  time”:  of  course,  these 
were  exceptions  to  the  rule;  and  it  must  not  be 
inferred  these  “dull  times”  were  frequent.  Sym¬ 
pathetic  audiences  made  preaching  a  delight  to 
him. 

It  is  characteristic  of  his  indomitable  will  that 
he  w^ould  not  let  the  comparatively  few  unpleasant 
experiences  affect  his  sense  of  duty.  He  says: 
“I  am  willing  to  travel  and  preach  as  long  as  I 
live  and  I  hope  I  shall  not  live  long  after  I  am 
unable  to  travel.”  He  evidently  needed  audi¬ 
ences  of  believers  and  serious-minded  people  to 
bring  out  his  strongest  points  as  a  preacher.  It 
is  probable  that  his  conception  of  what  sermons 
ought  to  be  was  so  exalted  that  he  felt  dissatis¬ 
fied  when  he  did  not  measure  up  to  his  own  high 

122 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


standard.  It  must  not  be  inferred  that  his  frank 
expressions  about  some  of  his  pulpit  efforts  meant 
that  he  had  actually  failed,  for  he  never  hesi¬ 
tated  to  fill  his  appointments  unless  prostrated 
by  illness.  He  judged  himself  more  severely  than 
his  hearers  did. 

Thomas  Ware,  an  itinerant  preacher,  who, 
himself,  knew  how  to  preach,  wrote  of  Asbury 
that  among  the  pioneers,  he,  by  common  con¬ 
sent,  stood  first.  “There  was  something  in  his 
person,”  he  said,  “his  eye,  his  mien  and  in  the 
music  of  his  voice  which  interested  all  who  heard 
him.  He  possessed  much  natural  wit,  and  was 
capable  of  the  severest  satire;  but  grace  and 
good  sense  so  far  predominated  that  he  never 
descended  to  anything  beneath  the  dignity  of  a 
man  and  a  Christian  minister.” 

Nathan  Bangs5  heard  Asbury  preach  in  1804. 
His  “manner,”  he  says,  was  “singularly  imposing; 
he  was  grave  and  commanding,  his  voice  sonor¬ 
ous,  and  his  delivery  attended  with  peculiar 
force.  He  seemed  like  a  great  military  com¬ 
mander  who  had  been  crowned  with  many  vic¬ 
tories.”  He  had  (he  was  then  fifty-seven)  “lived 
the  lives  of  half  a  score  of  ordinary  men;  his  brow 
was  indented,  his  face  weather-worn,  his  locks 
gray,”  and  he  was  the  battle-scarred  veteran  of 

5  A  distinguished  preacher  and  leader,  book  agent,  secretary  of  the 
Missionary  Society,  and  author  of  a  history  of  the  church. 

123 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


many  conflicts.  The  growing  host  of  itinerant 
preachers  “beheld  him  with  admiration  and  won¬ 
der”;  like  a  flaming  meteor,  whose  flashing  light 
was  to  be  seen,  here,  there,  yonder,  he  sounded 
the  trumpet  of  the  gospel,  and  “hastened  forward 
as  if  the  final  Judgment  were  about  to  break 
on  the  world.”  His  sermon  was  quite  discursive, 
abounding  “in  illustrations  and  anecdotes,”  and 
“sliding  from  one  subject  to  another  without 
system.” 

Henry  Maynard,  an  itinerant  who  often 
saw  and  heard  the  great  leader,  whom  all  ad¬ 
mired  and  reverenced,  says  as  a  preacher  he 
was  “dignified,  eloquent,  impressive.”  His  ser¬ 
mons,  characterized  by  “good  sense  and  sound 
wisdom,”  were  delivered  with  great  authority 
and  gravity,  and  often  “attended  with  divine 
unction”  as  “refreshing  as  the  dew  of  heaven.” 
Referring  to  a  sermon  on  union  and  brotherly 
love,  he  says  “it  was  the  greatest  I  ever  heard 
on  that  subject.”  Another  preacher  states  that 
Asbury  “always  preached  to  his  text,  never 
from  it.”  Every  proposition,  argument,  illustra¬ 
tion,  incident  led  directly  to  the  selected  passage. 

Another  witness,  the  Rev*,  Joseph  Travis,  of 
the  Memphis  Conference,  says  Asbury’s  style 
“was  plain  but  chaste,  his  grammar  correct,  his 
arguments  strong.  He  used  frequently  the 
enthymeme ,  a  syllogism  with  the  second  clause 

124 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


omitted,  as,  “Seeing  that  we  are  mortal,  we 
ought  to  be  prepared  for  death.”  As  a  theologian 
“he  had  but  few  equals,  if  any  superiors.” 

Henry  Boehm,  a  traveling  companion,  who 
heard  the  bishop  preach  fifteen  hundred  times, 
says  his  sermons  were  “scripturally  rich.”  He 
was  a  good  Bible  expositor,  “giving  the  meaning 
of  the  writer  and  the  mind  of  the  Spirit.”  There 
was  “a  rich  variety  in  his  sermons”  and  “no 
tedious  sameness.”  “He  could  be  a  son  of  thunder 
and  of  consolation.  .  .  .  He  was  great  at  camp 
meetings,  on  funeral  occasions,  and  at  ordi¬ 
nations.” 

Asbury  said  of  himself  once  when  his  Con¬ 
ference  cares  had  been  dismissed  he  felt  “un¬ 
common  light  and  energy  in  preaching,”  and 
added  what  might  truthfully  be  said  of  him  at 
all  times:  “I  am  not  prolix;  neither  am  I  tame; 
I  am  rapid,  and  nothing  freezes  on  my  lips.” 

He  was  a  preacher  of  apostolic  power  and 
faithfulness.  He  sounded  the  gospel  trumpet 
with  the  energy,  earnestness,  and  divine  unction 
of  Peter.  He  charged  the  multitude  of  young 
men  entering  the  ministry,  as  Paul  charged  Tim¬ 
othy,  that  they  “neglect  not  the  gift”  they  had 
received;  but  “take  heed  unto”  themselves  and 
“unto  the  doctrine”  and  “continue  in  it,  for  in 
so  doing”  they  should  “both  save”  themselves 
“and  them  that  hear.”  Like  the  loving  disciple 

125 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


John,  he  knew  how  to  encourage  and  comfort 
weary,  troubled  saints  by  holding  up  the  glory 
which  is  to  be  revealed  in  them  in  the  beautiful 
hereafter. 

One  can  see  from  the  record  of  texts  used  and 
the  divisions  of  his  discourses  something  of  his 
method.  Occasionally  his  themes  were  drawn 
from  the  prophecies  and  Psalms,  but  mostly  from 
the  Gospels  and  the  Epistles.  Early  in  his  min¬ 
istry  here  he  preached  on  “the  awful  subject  of 
the  Judgment,  endeavoring  to  prove  that  (1)  it 
will  be  universal;  (2)  to  describe  the  person  of 
the  Judge;  (3)  the  awful  events  preceding  and 
attending  it;  (4)  the  business  of  the  day;  (5)  the 
decision  and  its  consequences.”  In  Maryland,  at 
a  quarterly  meeting,  he  preached  from  Acts  20. 
28,  “Take  heed  unto  yourselves,”  etc.  His  points 
were:  1.  “Take  heed  to  your  spirits;  2.  To  your 
practice;  3.  To  your  doctrine;  4.  To  the  flock.” 
Under  the  last  point  there  were  five  subheadings, 
embracing  the  several  classes  in  a  congregation. 
To  a  large  assemblage  in  a  Virginia  courthouse 
he  preached  concerning  Peter’s  denial,  showing 
1.  Peter’s  self-confidence;  2.  How  he  followed 
afar  off;  3.  Mixed  with  the  wicked;  4.  Denied 
his  discipleship  and  then  his  Lord. 

In  Providence,  Rhode  Island,  where  he  was 
told  how  Gilbert  Tennent,  a  Presbyterian  evan¬ 
gelist,  whom  Asbury  revered,  came  to  the  city  to 

126 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


preach  and  how  people  were  converted,  he  selected 
as  an  appropriate  text  Galatians  11.  14,  “But 
God  forbid  that  I  should  glory,  save  in  the  cross 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,”  etc.,  his  divisions 
being;  1.  What  it  is  to  glory;  2.  What  things 
other  than  the  cross  men  glory  in;  3.  What  it  is 
to  glory  in  the  cross;  4.  One  may  know  that  he 
glories  in  the  cross  when  like  Paul  he  is  crucified 
unto  the  world. 

His  favorite  text  was  1  Timothy  1.  15:  “This 
is  a  faithful  saying,”  etc.  To  a  large  congre¬ 
gation  in  Kentucky  he  preached  acceptably  on 
Hebrews  11.  4-8,  about  the  fate  of  those  who 
having  tasted  the  good  word  of  God  and  the 
powers  of  the  world  to  come,  fall  away.  He 
endeavored  to  show:  1.  How  far  believers  may 
advance  in  grace;  2.  How  far  they  may  aposta- 
size;  3.  The  impossibility  of  recovery  when  they 
arrive  at  a  certain  degree  of  wickedness;  4.  The 
only  safe  thing  is  to  go  on  to  perfection.  On  an¬ 
other  occasion  his  sermon  was  based  on  Philemon 
11,  12,  13,  about  “working  out  your  own  salva¬ 
tion.”  His  points  were:  1.  Those  addressed  were 
believers;  2.  About  salvation — avoid  legality,  anti- 
nomianism,  lukewarmness;  3.  God  works  in  them 
to  resist  temptation,  to  sanctify,  and  finally  save; 
4.  They  should  work  out  their  own  salvation 
through  every  means  of  grace;  5.  With  fear,  where 
many  have  failed,  with  trembling  where  many 

127 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


have  fallen.  Some  Calvinists,  he  says,  were  not 
pleased. 

It  appears  to  have  been  the  custom  in  the 
days  of  Asbury  and  for  years  afterward,  where 
more  than  one  preacher  was  present,  to  follow 
the  sermon  with  an  exhortation.  In  Maryland, 
he  preached  after  a  love  feast,  “with  some  free¬ 
dom, ’’  and  Freeborn  Garrettson  “exhorted  long,” 
dealing  with  particular  cases  of  conscience,  and 
speaking  of  Christ  and  heaven  and  hell,  and 
carrying  “all  before  him.”  On  another  occasion, 
also  in  Maryland,  they  had  a  love  feast,  then 
preaching,  and  finally  a  watch-night  service,  in 
which  five  or  six  preachers  took  part.  A  little 
later  at  a  Quarterly  Conference  Asbury  preached 
and  Garrettson  and  Ruff  exhorted. 

The  great  purpose  of  the  sermon  being  to 
awaken  sinners  and  lead  them  to  decision,  the 
exhortations  were  naturally  directed  to  this  end 
and  had  a  cumulative  effect,  for  congregations 
were  willing  to  stay  and  listen  for  hours. 

As  a  preacher  Asbury  sounded  the  gospel 
trumpet  with  the  energy,  earnestness,  and  divine 
unction  of  a  Peter,  and  sinners  were  cut  to  the 
heart  by  the  sword  of  the  Spirit.  He  encouraged 
and  comforted  weary,  troubled  saints  by  glimpses 
of  the  heavenly  rewards  that  await  the  faithful; 
and  he  charged  the  young  preachers,  as  Paul 
charged  Timothy,  with  solemnity  and  power,  as 

128 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


a  father  in  the  gospel.  Remembering  that  in  his 
continuous  service  from  October,  1771,  to  March, 
1816,  he  must  have  preached  many  thousand 
times,  always  that  he  might  bring  sinners  to 
Christ,  with  thousands  of  souls  as  his  hire,  he 
must  surely  be  accounted  a  great  preacher. 


129 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE 

colonies  and  the  admission  of  the  United 
States  to  the  family  of  nations,  but  the  sundering 
of  ecclesiastical  ties  as  well.  No  one  saw  more 
clearly  than  John  Wesley  what  this  involved. 
He  knew  by  letters  from  Asbury  that  the  Meth¬ 
odist  societies  must  have  the  sacraments  in  a 
regular  way,  or  they  would  provide  themselves 
with  them  in  an  irregular  way,  as  had  already 
been  attempted  in  the  South.  Consequently,  he 
conferred  with  Thomas  Coke  in  February,  1784, 
five  months  after  the  Treaty  of  Peace  had  been 
ratified,  and  told  him  of  Asbury’s  request  that 
he  would  provide  some  mode  of  church  organ¬ 
ization  for  the  Methodist  societies  in  America 
“suitable  to  their  need.”  This,  he  said,  he  had 
now  decided  to  do,  and  the  great  leader  pro¬ 
ceeded  to  unfold  the  principles  of  the  plan  he  had 
in  view,  which  was  modeled  on  that  of  the  Church 
of  Alexandria,  in  primitive  times,  where  the 
presbyters,  on  the  death  of  a  bishop,  exercised 
the  right  of  ordaining  another  from  their  own 

130 


THE  close  of  the  Revolutionary  War  meant 
not  only  the  independence  of  the  American 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


body.  He  proposed  to  consecrate  Dr.  Coke, 
already  a  presbyter,  as  superintendent  to  serve 
in  America.  The  latter  was  startled  and  doubted 
the  validity  of  Wesley’s  authority.  After  two 
months’  reflection,  however,  he  yielded,  and  went 
to  Bristol,  after  the  Annual  Conference,  to  receive 
the  greater  powers  offered  him.  At  Bristol, 
Wesley,  assisted  by  Coke  and  another  friendly 
clergyman,  James  Creighton,  ordained  Richard 
Whatcoat  and  Thomas  Yasey  as  presbyters,  and 
then  Coke  was  consecrated  as  superintendent. 

The  three  came  to  America,  bearing  a  letter 
from  Wesley  in  which  he  set  forth  that  the  urgent 
conditions  in  the  United  States  had  led  him 
providentially,  seeing  no  other  way,  to  set  apart 
Coke  as  superintendent,  with  a  further  letter 
addressed  to  “Doctor  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  our 
Brethren  in  North  America,”  in  which  the  father 
of  the  movement  calls  attention  to  the  “very 
uncommon  train  of  providences”  which  have  sep¬ 
arated  the  colonies  composing  the  United  States 
from  the  mother  country,  and  also  annulled 
ecclesiastical  authority  over  American  bodies. 
He  had  long  believed  that  presbyters  and  bishops 
were  of  the  same  order  and  had  often  been  asked 
to  ordain  traveling  preachers  in  Great  Britain, 
but  had  refused,  being  unwilling  to  violate  the 
order  of  the  Established  Church.  Conditions 
were  different  in  America,  which  had  no  bishops 

131 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


or  parish  ministers,  and  his  scruples  accordingly 
here  ended.  He  had,  therefore,  “appointed  Doctor 
Coke  and  Mr.  Francis  Asbury  to  be  joint  super¬ 
intendents  over  our  brethren  in  North  America.” 
Further,  he  offered  a  liturgy  he  had  prepared  and 
advised  that  it  be  used  by  the  traveling  preachers 
in  Sunday  service,  reading  the  litany  only  on 
Wednesdays  and  Fridays  and  praying  extem¬ 
poraneously  on  all  other  days.  This  remarkable, 
statesmanlike  letter,  which  has  withstood  severe 
criticism  from  many  sources,  closed  with  these 
sentences : 

As  our  American  brethren  are  now  totally  disentangled 
from  both  state  and  the  English  hierarchy,  we  dare  not 
entangle  them  again.  .  .  .  They  are  now  at  full  liberty 
simply  to  follow  the  Scriptures  and  the  primitive  church. 
And  we  judge  it  best  that  they  should  stand  fast  in  that 
liberty  wherewith  God  has  so  strangely  made  them  free.” 

This  letter  was  not  the  product  of  senility,  as 
some  unfriendly  critics,  including  a  few  Method¬ 
ists,  hastened  to  say;  but  of  a  sound  mind  in  a 
sound  body,  even  at  the  age  of  eighty-two.  For 
many  years  he  had  believed  that  presbyters  and 
bishops  were  of  the  same  order  in  apostolic  times 
and  that  a  bishop  was  simply  president  of  a  body 
of  presbyters,  all  one  order,  with  two  offices. 

The  English  delegation  arrived  in  New  York 
in  November,  and  made  their  way  leisurely  to 
Judge  Bassett’s  in  Delaware.  Coke  preached  on 

132 


BARRATT'S  CHAPEL  IN  DELAWARE 
Where  Asbury  and  Coke  First  Met 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Sunday  in  Barratt’s  Chapel  and  administered  the 
communion.  Afterward,  as  stated  in  Drew’s 
Life  of  Coke ,  “a  plainly  dressed,  robust,  but 
venerable-looking  man  was  seen  moving  through 
the  congregation  and  making  his  way  to  the 
pulpit.  On  ascending  the  pulpit  he  clasped  the 
doctor  in  his  arms  and,  without  making  himself 
known  by  words,  accosted  him  with  the  holy 
salutation  of  primitive  Christianity.  The  vener¬ 
able  man  was  Mr.  Asbury,”  who,  by  the  way,  was 
only  thirty-nine  years  of  age. 

Asbury  was  amazed  at  seeing  Whatcoat  pass 
the  cup,  not  knowing  that  he  had  been  ordained. 
He  was  shocked”  at  first  at  the  errand  of  Coke, 
and  declared  he  would  not  serve  unless  unani¬ 
mously  chosen  by  the  brethren.  He  did  not  like 
sudden  changes,  suddenly  announced.  Fifteen 
preachers  were  present,  and  it  was  agreed  that 
a  General  Conference  should  be  called  to  meet 
in  Baltimore  on  Christmas.  Notice  was  sent 
South  by  Freeborn  Garrettson.  Asbury  laid  out 
an  itinerancy  of  a  thousand  miles  for  Coke  to 
follow  the  six  intervening  weeks,  appointing  Harry 
Hosier,  his  Negro  companion,  an  eloquent 
preacher,  to  be  Coke’s  guide. 

Sixty  preachers  assembled  for  the  Conference. 
After  the  reading  of  Wesley’s  letters,  Asbury  says, 
“It  was  agreed  to  form  ourselves  into  an  Episco¬ 
pal  Church,  and  to  have  superintendents,  elders, 

133 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


and  deacons.”  Whatcoat’s  account  is  fuller,  men¬ 
tioning  that  Wesley’s  liturgy  was  accepted,  the 
sacraments  to  be  administered  and  persons  to  be 
ordained,  after  election  by  Conference,  the  form 
of  ordination  to  be  that  prescribed  in  Wesley’s 
prayer  book. 

Asbury  was  ordained  deacon  on  the  second 
day,  elder  on  Sunday  and  bishop  on  Monday, 
Coke,  assisted  by  Vasey,  Whatcoat  and  Otterbein, 
conducting  the  last  ceremony,  both  Coke  and 
Asbury  having  been  elected  by  the  Conference. 
Wesley  knew  the  preachers  wanted  Asbury  for 
general  superintendent.  Among  the  letters  sent 
him  was  one  by  Edward  Dromgoole,  under  date 
of  May  24,  1783,  in  which  he  said: 

The  preachers  at  present  are  united  to  Mr.  Asbury  and 
esteem  him  very  highly  in  love  for  his  work’s  sake,  and 
earnestly  desire  his  continuance  on  the  continent  during  his 
natural  life;  and  to  act  as  he  does  at  present,  to  wit,  to 
superintend  the  -whole  work  and  go  through  all  the  circuits 
once  a  year.  He  is  now  well  acquainted  with  the  country, 
with  the  preachers  and  with  the  people,  and  has  a  large  share 
in  the  affections  of  both.  Therefore  they  would  not  willingly 
part  with  him.1 

Ordinations  of  the  preachers  as  deacons  and 
elders  were  numerous,  so  that  when  the  Confer¬ 
ence  broke  up  every  charge  represented  received 
an  ordained  man,  and  there  was  general  rejoicing. 


1  Centennial  History  of  American  Methodism,  John  Atkinson,  p.  27. 

134 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


The  Conference  adopted  “the  discipline  which 
was  substantially  the  same  with  the  large  minutes, 
the  principal  alterations  being  only  such  as  were 
necessary  to  adapt  it  to  the  state  of  things  in 
America.”2  It  also  agreed  to  acknowledge  the 
authority  of  John  Wesley  during  his  lifetime  and 
“in  matters  of  church  government  to  obey  his 
commands” — a  rather  hasty  promise.  It  forbade 
traveling  ministers  to  drink  spirituous  liquors, 
except  medicinally,  and  fixed  the  duties  of  super¬ 
intendents.  They  were  to  ordain  superintendents, 
elders  and  deacons,  to  preside  in  Conferences, 
to  fix  the  appointments,  to  change,  receive,  sus¬ 
pend  preachers  in  the  interval  of  the  Conferences 
and  to  receive  and  decide  appeals  from  preach¬ 
ers  and  people.  Several  provisions  relating  to 
superintendents,  elders  and  deacons,  and  to  “ex¬ 
tirpate  the  abomination  of  slavery”  were  adopted. 
The  latter  were  modified,  to  some  extent,  by 
postscripts,  allowing  the  brethren  in  Virginia  two 
years  to  adjust  themselves  to  the  new  conditions 
and  suspending  the  operation  of  the  regulations 
in  States  whose  laws  were  opposed  to  them. 

Wesley’s  liturgical  service  was  used  for  a  while, 
the  elders  appearing  in  gowns  and  bands,  but  to 
many  worshipers  the  reading  was  tedious  (a 
Louisiana  Negro  who  joined  the  Protestant  Epis¬ 
copal  Church  said,  “Dey  takes  too  much  time 

2  History  of  Discipline,  Robert  Emory. 

135 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


readin’  de  minutes  of  de  previous  meetin’  ”),  the 
order  difficult  to  learn,  and  the  taste  for  extem¬ 
pore  prayer  so  well  fixed  that  the  democratic  way 
was  soon  restored.  Wesley’s  changes  in  the 
Thirty -nine  Articles  of  Religion,  omitting  fourteen 
of  them,  changing  others  slightly,  were  accepted, 
the  Conference  adding  one  for  the  President, 
Congress,  etc.  The  elimination  was  supposed  to 
rid  the  symbol  from  traces  of  Romanism  and 
Calvinism. 

The  people  had  been  so  long  without  the  Lord’s 
Supper,  and  so  many  converts  and  infants  had 
been  deprived  of  baptism,  withal  the  scattered 
societies,  with  no  ecclesiastical  order,  no  auto¬ 
matic  power,  no  ministers,  no  sacraments,  no 
right  to  be  called  churches,  no  place  of  dignity 
among  the  denominations,  were  so  helpless  in 
their  new  isolation  that  the  news  of  their  organ¬ 
ization  and  investment  with  all  the  powers  and 
dignities  of  a  Church  of  Christ  filled  every  breast 
with  feelings  of  holy  joy.  Wesley  had  done  a 
great,  a  wonderful  thing  for  them  in  a  large- 
hearted  way,  and  the  Conference  with  equal 
generosity  recognized  it  in  a  resolution  which 
afterward  was  to  cause  some  trouble,  as  Asbury 
naively  admits:  “I  sat  mute  and  modest,”  he 
says,  when  they  passed  the  resolution,  though 
he  deemed  the  promise  to  obey  in  governing 
matters  a  man  three  thousand  miles  away  unwise; 

136 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


and  was  “mute  and  modest”  later  when  it  was 
rescinded. 

The  preachers  called  “assistants,”  in  charge  of 
circuits,  were  ordained  as  elders,  and  those  called 
“helpers,”  also  a  Wesley  term,  as  deacons.  The 
Minutes  of  the  Conference  give  a  list  of  twenty 
elders  and  thirty-five  deacons  and  the  names  of 
Thomas  Coke  and  Francis  Asbury  appear  at  the 
head  as  superintendents.  A  footnote  to  the 
word  “superintendents,”  made  by  Asbury,  runs 
thus:  “As  the  translators  of  our  version  of  the 
Bible  have  used  the  English  word  Bishop  instead 
of  Superintendent , .  it  had  been  thought  by  us 
that  it  would  appear  more  scriptural  to  adopt 
their  term  Bishop .”  In  the  Minutes  of  1788  the 
word  “bishops”  is  first  used  instead  of  “super¬ 
intendents”  in  connection  with  the  names  of 
Coke  and  Asbury.  The  next  year  it  disappeared. 
In  1790  John  Wesley’s  name  stands  first  and 
Coke’s  and  Asbury’s  names  second  and  third  as 
exercising  “the  episcopal  office  in  Europe  and 
America.”  Wesley’s  scathing  letter  to  Asbury 
about  the  use  of  the  term  “bishop,”  wherein  that 
great  man  appeared  at  great  disadvantage,  doubt¬ 
less  led  the  American  to  drop  temporarily  the 
perfectly  simple  and  appropriate  title,  implied 
by  the  name  “Methodist  Episcopal  Church.” 
But  what  provoked  the  ire  of  Wesley  was  the 
comparison  it  would  suggest  with  bishops  of  the 

137 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


Church  of  England.  He  declared  with  unwonted 
heat  that  men  might  call  him  knave  or  scoun¬ 
drel,  but  never  bishop.  Before  he  died,  however, 
he  was  not  only  reconciled  to  but  defended  the 
use  of  “bishop”  in  America. 

The  preachers  prominent  in  the  Christmas 
Conference,  besides  Coke  and  Asbury,  were  Free¬ 
born  Garrettson,  born  in  Maryland,  converted  at 
an  early  age,  admitted  on  trial  in  1773,  a  fine 
preacher,  a  strong  friend,  and  a  Christian  gentle¬ 
man,  whose  career,  like  the  path  of  the  just,  was 
“a  shining  light,  increasing  more  and  more  unto 
the  perfect  day”;3  Richard  Whatcoat,  afterward 
to  become  a  bishop,  of  whom  it  was  said  at  his 
consecration,  “Never  were  holy  hands  laid  on  a 
holier  head”;  Thomas  Vasey,  also  ordained  by 
Wesley  with  Whatcoat;  James  O’Kelly,  who  was 
to  lead  the  first  secession  from  the  newly  organized 
church;  William  Watters,  of  Maryland,  the  first 
native-born  itinerant.  These  and  other  preach¬ 
ers  took  part  in  the  most  important  event  that 
had  yet  occurred  in  American  Methodism.  And 
yet  the  list  of  its  members  and  even  the  date  of 
its  meeting  are  disputed  questions.  Its  Minutes , 
as  printed  under  Asbury’s  direction,  say  it  was 
held  in  January,  1785;  the  date  of  its  adjourn¬ 
ment  seems  to  have  been  January  1.  Some 

3  A  History  of  Methodists  in  the  United  States,  James  M.  Buckley, 
p.  171. 


138 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


authorities  fix  on  Christmas  Day  as  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  its  session;  others  on  December  24.  The 
original  Minutes ,  printed  by  John  Dickins  in 
1795,  covering  the  Conferences  from  1773  to 
1794  inclusive,  call  the  Conferences  held  in  1786 
and  1787  General  Conferences,  from  which  we 
must  conclude,  not  that  all  the  preachers  assem¬ 
bled  in  one  Conference  in  those  two  years,  but 
that  Francis  Asbury  was  an  extremely  busy  man 
and  made  mistakes  occasionally  to  prove  that  he 
wTas  human. 

According  to  the  Minutes  there  were  18,000  in 
society  at  the  time  of  the  General  Conference, 
with  20  elders,  including  two  from  Antigua, 
West  Indies,  and  James  Cromwell,  of  Nova 
Scotia,  and  85  others,  some  of  whom  became 
deacons.  Thus  there  were  of  itinerants,  besides 
the  two  bishops,  105,  at  the  end  of  1784.  The 
next  year  they  had  increased  to  118,  and  the 
members  had  grown  to  20,681. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  now  in  full 
commission,  with  all  necessary  organization  and 
authority,  was  ready  to  enter  upon  a  career 
unparalleled  in  the  history  of  the  Church  of 
Christ,  with  a  leader  adequate  to  all  the  demands 
that  a  fast  developing  organization,  under  Divine 
Providence,  was  to  make  on  him. 

In  some  respects  the  ecclesiastical  system 
adopted  was  unique:  1.  The  itinerancy  which, 

139 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


combined  with  the  circuit  plan,  made  the  largest 
possible  use  of  a  limited  supply  of  preachers. 
It  had  disadvantages,  as  the  settled  pastorate 
also  has,  but  without  it  Methodism  could  not 
have  had  the  phenomenal  growth  which  has 
characterized  it;  2.  The  supervisory  method, 
embracing  (a)  itinerant  bishops,  not  diocesan  nor 
of  a  separate  order,  as  in  the  Anglican  Com¬ 
munion,  but  of  the  body  of  presbyters,  or  elders, 
with  a  different  office.  They  traveled  throughout 
the  church,  holding  Annual  Conferences,  ordain¬ 
ing  and  appointing  preachers,  selecting  presiding 
elders,  participating  in  the  administration  of  the 
denominational  boards,  constituting  a  strong, 
united  body  of  leaders;  ( b )  presiding  elders,  sub¬ 
bishops  over  Annual  Conference  districts,  who 
looked  after  the  interests  of  a  limited  number 
of  ministers  and  churches  and  advised  with  the 
bishop  in  making  the  appointments.  Bishops 
and  district  superintendents,  as  they  are  now 
called,  are  of  great  help  in  the  missionary  enter¬ 
prise  at  home  and  abroad,  and  are  in  almost 
everything  leaders  and  advisers.  The  General  Con¬ 
ference,  composed,  since  1872,  of  both  ministerial 
and  lay  representatives,  is  the  supreme  legislative 
and  judicial  body  of  the  church  and  exercises  con¬ 
trol  over  the  bishops,  whose  character  and  adminis¬ 
tration  are  subject  to  its  examination  and  whose 
places  of  residence  are  determined  by  it. 

140 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


CHAPTER  XI 

AS  A  PROJECTOR  OF  CHURCH 
INSTITUTIONS 

A  RECENT  book1  speaks  of  Methodism  as 
a  world  religion,  and  as  such  essentially 
missionary.  And  yet  it  is  not  a  new 
religion  but  the  old  religion — that  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles — rediscovered  and  applied  in 
a  modern  age.  New  only  as  an  organization, 
providential  in  its  development,  Methodism  has 
no  “Thus-saith-the-Lord”  for  its  forms  or  for¬ 
mularies,  though  defending  them  as  in  general 
harmony  with  the  apostolic  church.  It  only 
claims  divine  power  for  that  which  constitutes 
its  life  force. 

Methodism  was  a  world  force  from  the 
beginning  because  it  had  the  missionary  spirit. 
“Amongst  the  larger  Protestant  Churches  the 
Methodist  communion  is  that  which  alone,  from 
the  outset  and  distinctly,  adopted  a  world-wide 
aim.  It  addressed  the  message  of  Christ  to  the 
individual  man  as  the  only  way  to  reach  through 
him  to  mankind.”2  Doctor  Findlay  says  “the 


1  History  of  the  Wesleyan  Missionary  Society,  G.  G.  Findlay.  Five 
Volumes.  London,  The  Epworth  Press. 

2  Review  of  G.  G.  Findlay’s  first  two  volumes  in  The  Christian  Guard¬ 
ian,  January  3,  1923,  Toronto,  Canada. 

141 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


world  expansion  of  Protestantism  commenced 
from  this  date.”  Dr.  Thomas  Coke,  clergyman 
of  the  Church  of  England,  appointed  as  superin¬ 
tendent  of  the  societies  in  America,  with  Asbury, 
embodied  the  early  missionary  impulse  of  Method¬ 
ism.  Wesley  sent  him  to  America,  but  he  could 
not  be  confined  to  any  continent.  After  he  had 
been  driven  from  Petherington,  where  he  was 
serving  as  curate  and  preaching  the  doctrines  of 
Methodism,  which  he  had  received  from  Thomas 
Maxfield,  Wesley’s  first  lay  preacher,  he  was  a 
world  character.  The  rector  of  the  church  could 
dismiss  him,  and  the  church  itself  could  drive 
him  away  “amid  the  ringing  of  church  bells, 
whilst  the  rabble  were  regaled  with  hogsheads  of 
cider,”  and  provided  themselves  “with  hampers 
of  stones”  to  hasten  his  departure;  but  neither 
bishop  nor  rector  nor  members  nor  rabble  could 
bring  him  back  when  their  eyes  were  opened  to 
see  that  “the  poor  had  lost  their  benefactor,  the 
people  their  pastor,  the  sick  their  comforter,  and 
the  wicked  the  only  person  that  kept  them  in 
awe.”  Their  repentance  came  too  late.  “We 
chimed  him  out,”  they  said,  and  they  were  ready 
to  atone  for  their  folly  “by  ringing  him  in”; 
but  God  had  provided  better  and  bigger  things 
for  him.  He  was  to  make  many  trips  to  America, 
to  preside  at  the  organization  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  to  establish  Methodism  in  the 

142 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


West  Indies,  to  plan  in  1784  for  the  organization 
of  a  “Society  for  the  Establishment  of  Missions 
among  the  Heathen,”  and  to  sail  himself,  with 
six  others,  for  India  to  begin  the  work,  dying 
on  shipboard  and  being  buried  in  the  Indian 
Ocean  with  the  “spicy  breezes  .  .  .  from  Ceylon’s 
Isle,”  as  his  requiem.  His  missionary  plan,  ap¬ 
proved  by  Wesley,  antedates  Carey’s  appeal  by 
eight  years,  and  the  formation  of  the  Baptist 
Missionary  Society,  the  London  Missionary  So¬ 
ciety,  and  the  Church  Missionary  Society. 

This  was  the  same  year  he  came  to  America, 
bringing  Wesley’s  letter  authorizing  the  organ¬ 
ization  of  the  societies  into  an  independent  church, 
and  providing  for  the  ordination  of  Asbury,  at 
the  hands  of  Coke,  as  deacon,  elder,  and  super¬ 
intendent.  This  was  the  chief  work  he  had  to 
do  on  this  side  of  the  sea;  henceforth  he  was  to 
busy  himself  chiefly  with  plans  for  world  missions. 

Bishop  Asbury’s  mind,  says  Doctor  Strickland, 
“was  stamped  upon  the  genius  and  institutions 
of  American  Methodism  as  effectually  as  was  that 
of  Wesley  upon  English  Methodism,”3  and  he 
adds:  “No  man  ever  lived  who  projected  himself 
further  into  the  future  of  all  that  pertains”  to 
the  Church’s  “genius,  government  and  institutions 
than  did  Asbury.”  One  cannot  write  of  the 

3  The  Pioneer  Bishop,  or  the  Life  and  Times  of  Francis  Asbury ,  William 
P.  Strickland,  p.  184. 


143 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


Methodist  Missionary  Society,  which  was  not 
organized  until  after  his  death;  nor  of  the  Book 
Concern;  nor  of  the  American  Bible  Society,  nor 
of  the  Board  of  Education  for  Negroes,  nor  of 
the  Board  of  Sunday  Schools,  nor  of  the  Board 
of  Conference  Claimants,  without  mentioning  the 
work  Francis  Asbury  did  for  all  these  causes. 
His  mind  is  stamped  on  all  these  institutions. 
He  saw  them  in  the  future  with  the  eye  of  a 
prophet  and  projected  them.  He  came  himself 
as  a  missionary  to  America,  and  he  did  not  forget 
that  the  first  missionaries,  Richard  Boardman 
and  Joseph  Pilmoor,  who  preceded  him,  brought 
the  proceeds  of  a  missionary  collection  by  the 
English  Conference,  for  the  American  societies. 
In  his  Journal  under  date  of  August  1,  1815, 
within  eight  months  of  his  death,  on  his  way 
across  the  Alleghanies  to  hold  the  Ohio  Confer¬ 
ence,  Asbury  speaks  of  hearing  the  plea  of  a 
Baptist  missionary  for  foreign  missions.  He 
writes,  “We  labor  for  those  at  home.”  As  he 
heard  the  plea  of  the  Baptist  brother  he  thought 
he  might  help,  and  so  rose  and  related  a  con¬ 
versation  with  a  London  Methodist  a  few  years 
ago,  in  which  the  English  brother  complained 
that  Methodists  and  others  in  England  had  given 
so  largely  for  foreign  missions.  “I  observed,” 
said  the  bishop,  “that  the  Methodist  preachers 
who  had  been  sent  by  John  Wesley  to  America 

144 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


came  as  missionaries.  Some  of  them  returned; 
but  not  all.  And  now  behold  the  consequences 
of  this  mission.  We  have  seven  hundred  preachers 
and  three  thousand  local  preachers  who  cost  us 
nothing.  We  will  not  give  up  the  cause,  we  will 
not  abandon  the  world  to  infidels.  We  will  not 
give  up  that  which  we  know  to  be  glorious  until 
we  see  something  more  glorious.”  This  shows 
that  in  those  early  days  of  missionary  enterprise 
this  great  Methodist  itinerant  had  the  world 
vision  of  4 ‘Christ  for  the  world  and  the  world  for 
Christ.” 

More  than  thirty  years  before  the  Missionary 
Society  was  formed  Francis  Asbury  was  prose¬ 
cuting  as  vigorously  as  possible  home  missionary 
work.  In  Baltimore,  in  April,  1786,  he  says  he 
spoke  three  times  and  took  a  collection  4  4 to  defray 
the  expense  of  sending  missionaries  to  the  Western 
settlements” — across  the  Alleglianies.  At  the 
Council  held  in  Baltimore,  in  1789,  he  says,  44I 
collected  about  £28  for  the  suffering  preachers 
in  the  West.”  The  following  year  in  Tennessee 
he  found  4  4 the  poor  preachers  indifferently  clad, 
with  emaciated  bodies  and  subject  to  hard  fare.” 
In  Kentucky  he  found  still  more  primitive  condi¬ 
tions.  Few  houses,  44steep  hills,  deep  rivers, 
muddy  creeks;  a  thick  growth  of  reeds  for  miles 
together,  and  no  inhabitants  but  wild  beasts 
and  savage  men.”  He  held  a  Conference  in  44a 

145 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


very  comfortable  house,”  not  far  from  a  place 
where  a  massacre  of  twenty-four  persons  by 
Indians  had  taken  place  not  long  before.  He 
ordained  three  elders  and  mixed  with  Conference 
proceedings  were  sermons,  conversions  and  recla¬ 
mations.  His  soul  was  blessed  among  “these 
people,”  he  was  “exceedingly  pleased”  with  them. 
And  at  that  Conference  in  the  wilderness  the 
bishop  writes,  “We  fixed  a  plan  for  a  school  and 
called  it  Bethel,  and  obtained  a  subscription  of 
upward  of  £300  in  land  and  money  for  its  estab¬ 
lishment.”  Surely,  this  was  new  missionary 
territory,  and  it  had  larger  prospects  than  its 
condition  would  seem  to  warrant. 

In  1792  at  a  Conference  in  Albany,  New  York, 
the  bishop  says: 

“We  appointed  Jonathan  Newman  a  missionary  to  the 
whites  and  Indians  on  the  frontiers.  We  also  sent  another 
to  Cataraqui  [Cattaraugus?].  At  the  Baltimore  Conference 
in  1790  a  collection  of  over  £72  was  divided  among  the  needy 
brethren  in  Ohio  [two  thirds]  and  those  in  Kentucky  [one 
third].” 

The  West  and  Southwest  were  new  territory,  and 
people  from  the  seaboard  States  rushed  to  Ohio, 
Indiana,  Illinois,  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Missouri 
and  Mississippi,  after  the  French  and  Indian 
War,  and  sought  the  rich  land  opened  up  for 
settlement. 

The  early  itinerants  in  the  West  had  long  and 

146 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


arduous  circuits  to  travel,  requiring  four  to  six 
weeks  to  compass.  In  1800  Henry  Smith’s  cir¬ 
cuit  4 ‘covered  all  southern  Ohio  between  the 
Ohio  and  Scioto  Rivers.”  Benjamin  Lakin  had 
a  circuit  in  northern  Kentucky  “extending  from 
Maysville  to  the  Licking  River”  and  William 
Burke  had  one  in  central  Kentucky  a  hundred 
miles  long.  “James  B.  Finley’s  first  circuit,  the 
Wills  Creek,  was  four  hundred  and  seventy-five 
miles  around.”  The  first  man  west  of  Indiana 
had  the  whole  of  Illinois  for  his  circuit,  and  an¬ 
other  was  assigned  to  Missouri  as  his  field.  Tobias 
Gibson  had  preaching  places  on  the  lower 
Mississippi  distributed  over  a  territory  several 
hundred  miles  in  length,  and  Elisha  Bowman 
“covered  a  territory  equally  large,  after  the 
Louisiana  Purchase.”4 

Surely,  this  wilderness  was  missionary  ground, 
and  never  were  self-supporting  missions  more 
terribly  pressed  by  the  wolf.  The  salary  of  a 
preacher  was  sixty -four  dollars  a  year  from  1784 
to  1800.  In  1792  traveling  expenses  were  added, 
and  in  1800  the  annual  pay  was  fixed  at  eighty 
dollars  and  traveling  expenses.  Circuit  riders, 
presiding  elders,  and  bishops  all  had  the  same 
salary.  There  was  no  distinction  or  discrimina¬ 
tion.  Either  salary,  the  smaller  or  the  larger, 

4  The  Rise  of  Methodism  in  the  West,  William  Warren  Sweet,  pp. 

41,  42. 


147 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


was  pitifully  small;  but  often  the  poor  preacher 
was  short  of  the  designated  sum.  Single  men 
were  preferred;  but  married  men  could  not  be 
refused  and  their  families  had  “short  commons.” 
The  frontier  log  cabins,  of  generally  one  room, 
had  only  homemade  furniture  and  little  of  that. 
The  bedsteads  were  stationary,  “fastened  to  the 
sides  of  the  cabin.”  They  were  without  springs, 
and  for  years  without  feather  beds. 

No  wonder  Bishop  Asbury  gave  to  the  uncom¬ 
plaining  heroes  in  the  Western  wilderness  all  of 
his  own  clothing  he  could  spare — his  watch,  his 
coat,  and  his  shirt.  Professor  Sweet  says  the 
salaries  were  paid  in  cash,  in  cloth,  in  corn,  leather, 
linen,  shoes,  socks,  etc.,  anything  the  contributors 
could  spare,  and  nearly  everything  could  be 
turned  to  good  account  by  the  preachers. 

Among  the  plans  of  Bishop  Asbury  for  helping 
distressed  ministers  and  wives  and  children  of 
ministers,  all  truly  missionary,  was  a  form  of 
mite  subscription,  which  he  seems  to  have  car¬ 
ried  about  with  him.  The  last  one,  entitled 
“Mite  Subscription  Opened  and  Continued  for 
the  Year  1816,”  with  his  own  subscription  at  the 
head,  has  been  preserved  and  is  among  the  treas¬ 
ures  in  possession  of  Drew  Theological  Seminary 
Library.5  No  person  could  give  more  than  one 

5  A  facsimile  of  it  is  given  in  Francis  Asbury ,  The  Prophet  of  the  Long 
Road,  Ezra  Squier  Tipple. 


148 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


dollar  and  some  gave  as  little  as  an  old-fashioned 
shilling,  twelve  and  one  half  cents,  or  even  a 
fi’-penny-bit  (“fip”),  six  and  one  quarter  cents. 
Part  of  the  proceeds  of  the  subscription  for  1816 
were  to  be  used  to  send  missionaries  to  the  Ger¬ 
man,  French,  and  Spanish  populations.  The 
great  itinerant  had  a  list  with  him  in  1815  and 
he  notes  in  South  Carolina,  ‘Sve  collected  liberally 
on  the  mite  subscription  to  help  the  suffering 
ministry.”  In  Ohio  he  speaks  of  visiting  from 
house  to  house  with  his  mite  list,  and  notes  that 
the  people  seemed  glad  to  subscribe.  At  the 
Ohio  Conference  a  month  later  the  proceeds 
helped  in  relieving  the  preachers.  The  General 
Conference  of  1812  authorized  Annual  Confer¬ 
ences  to  raise  funds  for  “missionary  purposes,” 
at  Asbury’s  request. 

If  this  great  and  good  pioneer  could  have 
lived  three  or  four  years  longer,  he  would  have 
seen  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Mission¬ 
ary  Society  and  would  have  chosen  to  be  one  of 
its  organizers  and  promoters.  It  began  at  once 
to  help  missions  at  home,  but  more  than  a  decade 
passed  before  it  had  a  mission  abroad.  The 
receipts  of  the  first  year  were  only  $823.04,  of 
which  but  $85.76  was  called  for,  leaving  about 
ninety  per  cent  of  the  year’s  income  as  a  balance 
in  the  treasury,  a  condition  which  was  never 
to  occur  again.  The  early  reports  of  the  Society, 

149 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


written  by  Nathan  Bangs,  are  of  great  interest 
even  in  this  day  of  great  and  increasing  mis¬ 
sionary  operation.  The  second  annual  report 
observes  that  the  “success  of  missionary  exertions 
has  answered  every  objection  which  the  ingenuity 
of  men  could  raise  against  the  cause.”6  The 
same  report  speaks  of  missionary  work  among  the 
French  and  Indians,  and  adds  these  prophetic 
and  discriminating  words  concerning  the  evan¬ 
gelization  of  the  Indians:  “The  design  is  worthy 
of  the  apostles,  and  it  will  require  the  zeal  of 
the  apostles  to  accomplish  it.”  An  even  more 
notable  forecast  was  given  in  these  words:  “The 
history  of  Methodism  in  the  four  quarters  of 
the  world  will  exhibit  a  success  unparalleled  by 
anything  since  the  apostolic  age.”  Written  years 
before  our  first  foreign  mission  had  been  estab¬ 
lished,  this  prediction  has  already  become  history. 
In  the  year  19 22  of  the  total  membership  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  4,593,540,  about 
566,700  were  in  our  foreign  missions;  that  is, 
more  than  twelve  per  cent  of  the  lay  members  of 
the  church  were  in  the  continents  of  Africa,  Asia, 
South  America,  North  America  (Mexico),  and 
Europe. 

In  Sunday-school  work  no  other  Protestant 
body  equals  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in 

6  Missionary  Growth  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  H.  K.  Carroll, 
p.  13. 


150 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 

the  number  of  its  enrollment — 4,848,091  (1922), 
which  is  larger  than  its  total  membership  by 
254,551;  and  it  is  from  the  Sunday  school,  in 
these  modern  days,  when  the  old  methods  of 
evangelism  are  being  abandoned,  that  the  church 
gets  recruits  for  its  membership.  The  Sunday 
school  is  the  open  door  of  the  church,  and  of 
incalculable  value.  Bishop  Asbury  with  far  vision 
saw  the  importance  of  providing  for  the  care  of 
the  children  and  held  the  first  Methodist  Sunday 
school  in  America  at  the  house  of  Thomas  Cren¬ 
shaw,  Hanover  County,  Virginia,  in  1786.  Doctor 
Buckley  thinks  this  was  the  first  Sunday  school 
in  the  New  World;7  but,  according  to  an  article 
by  Dr.  E.  W.  Rice,8  an  excellent  authority,  there 
were  a  number  of  isolated  Sunday  schools  in 
America  as  early  as  the  seventeenth  century. 
Asbury’s  Virginia  Sunday  school  seems  to  have 
been  the  first  Methodist  Sunday  school  in  America, 
unless  John  Wesley’s  school  in  Georgia,  held  on 
Sunday,  is  entitled  to  be  called  such.  It  is  quite 
probable  that  Asbury  was  led  to  adopt  the  new 
institution  by  reading  an  account  in  the  Arminian 
Magazine,  for  January,  1785,  by  Robert  Raikes, 
of  how  he  came  to  open  the  first  Sunday  school 
in  England.  Wesley  saw  at  once  the  value  of 

7  A  History  of  Methodists  in  the  United  States,  James  M.  Buckley,  p. 
271. 

8  New  Schajf -Herzog  Encyclopedia,  vol.  XI,  pp.  151-164. 

151 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


the  idea,  and  Wesleyan  Methodism  had  a  notable 
Sunday  school  at  Bolton  le  Moors,  begun  before 
April,  1786.  The  Sunday  school  which  Asbury 
established  at  the  house  of  Thomas  Crenshaw 
continued  many  years,  and  a  colored  man  by  the 
name  of  John  Charleston,  who  was  a  member 
of  it,  became  a  preacher.  Friends  raised  money 
and  purchased  his  liberty,  after  which  he  was 
ordained  deacon  by  Bishop  McKendree,  and 
served  many  years  most  faithfully  and  efficiently.9 

The  idea  of  gathering  the  children  together  on 
Sunday  for  instruction  in  the  fundamentals  and 
in  the  Bible  and  religion  commended  itself  for 
many  reasons.  Four  years  after  the  starting  of 
the  Asbury  school  in  Virginia,  1790,  the  Con¬ 
ferences  discussed  the  subject  and  approved  the 
organization  of  such  schools.  In  the  minutes  the 
following  question  and  answer  appeared  for  the 
first  time: 

Ques.  What  can  be  done  to  instruct  poor  children,  white 
and  black,  to  read? 

Ans.  Let  us  labor  as  the  heart  and  soul  of  one  man  to 
establish  Sunday  schools  in  or  near  the  place  of  public 
worship.  Let  persons  be  appointed  by  the  bishops,  elders, 
deacons,  or  preachers  to  teach  gratis  all  that  will  attend  and 
have  a  capacity  to  learn,  from  six  o’clock  in  the  morning  till 
ten,  and  from  two  o’clock  in  the  afternoon  till  six,  where  it 
does  not  interfere  with  public  worship.  The  Council  shall 
compile  a  proper  schoolbook  to  teach  them  learning  and  piety. 


9  Centennial  History  of  American  Methodism ,  Atkinson,  p.  175. 

152 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


In  those  days  there  were  no  free  schools  and 
poor  parents  could  not  always  pay  to  have  their 
children  taught.  Free  Sunday  schools  would, 
therefore,  be  popular,  it  was  supposed,  but  most 
of  the  illiterates  were  Negroes,  and  their  parents 
were  backward  about  sending  them.  Therefore 
the  schools  did  not  simply  teach  reading  but 
endeavored  to  train  in  piety  and  biblical  knowl¬ 
edge.  Now  the  kindergarten  constitutes  a 
particular  attraction  for  the  little  folks,  and 
Bible  training  is  the  feature  of  greatest  value. 
Asbury  saw  but  little  of  the  development  which 
has  made  this  institution  what  it  is,  but  he  appre¬ 
ciated  the  importance  of  teaching  the  plastic 
minds  of  children  the  things  pertaining  to  the 
life  that  now  is  and  the  life  which  is  to  come, 
and  constantly  sought  in  his  travels  to  interest 
and  instruct  them.  The  Conferences  of  1787 
took  action  to  the  effect  that  children  be  placed 
in  classes  for  weekly  instruction  and  when  awak¬ 
ened  be  admitted  to  the  society.  This  was  an 
advance  step. 

The  Bible  to  the  early  Methodist  itinerants 
was  the  one  indispensable  book.  Second  to  it 
was  the  Discipline,  and  then  Wesley’s  Sermons 
and  Notes.  Around  the  Word  of  God  as  the 
center  were  gathered  other  publications  necessary 
and  helpful,  and,  of  course,  class  leaders  must 
have  it,  and  all  others  who  would  be  intelligent 

153 


FRANCIS  ASRURY 


disciples  of  the  Divine  Master.  Asbury  did 
what  he  could  to  circulate  the  Book.  He  became 
a  member  of  the  first  American  Bible  Society,  in 
Philadelphia,  and  taking  supplies  of  the  book 
in  his  saddlebags  on  his  travels,  distributed  them 
widely.  It  was  not  for  years  easy  to  get  Bibles. 
It  was  considered  so  important  that  the  people 
should  be  able  to  secure  them  that  the  United 
States  Congress  ordered  at  public  expense  the 
importation  of  twenty  thousand  copies. 

Bishop  Asbury  also  busied  himself  with  the 
compilation  of  a  hymn  book.  He  mentions  the 
fact  that  he  had  taken  two  hundred  hymns  from 
the  Congregational  hymn  book  to  put  in  a  new 
American  edition,  and  a  month  or  two  later  he 
was  selecting  scriptural  texts  to  insert  with  the 
new  hymns  in  the  enlargement  “of  our  common 
hymn  book.”  The  Methodists  have  always  taken 
great  interest  in  congregational  singing.  The 
two  Wesleys  and  other  Methodists  have  fur¬ 
nished,  in  common  with  all  evangelical  Chris¬ 
tians,  many  of  the  choicest  spiritual  songs.  But 
American  Methodists  are  not  abreast  of  the 
English  Methodists  in  the  use  of  hymns.  The 
latter  have  at  least  five  numbers  in  Sunday  wor¬ 
ship.  We  are  content  with  three,  and  the  three 
are  often  abbreviated.  Little  is  said  as  to 
Asbury’s  singing,  but  most  of  his  associate  itiner¬ 
ants  knew  how  to  lead,  and  often  began  their 

154 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


informal  services  by  an  unannounced  solo.  No 
denomination  has  made  more  use  of  hymns  than 
Methodists. 

By  common  consent  the  best  minds  would 
doubtless  agree  that  the  success  of  Methodism 
has  been  achieved  in  large  measure  by  extensive 
use  of  the  press.  Books  and  periodicals  bear 
silent  messages,  but  they  bear  them  effectively 
and  bear  them  to  persons  and  places  where  the 
voice  of  the  preacher  is  seldom  or  never  heard. 
Methodism  owed  its  abundant  and  influential 
literature  most  of  all  to  John  Wesley,  whose  ser¬ 
mons  and  notes  and  hymns,  his  magazine  and  the 
numerous  books  he  edited  and  prepared  for 
larger  usefulness  than  they  could  have  had  with¬ 
out  the  touch  of  his  facile  and  learned  pen,  have 
wielded  a  vast  power  for  good  over  uncounted 
multitudes.  One  of  the  first  English  mission¬ 
aries  (Robert  Williams)  who  came  to  America 
brought  Wesley’s  publications  with  him,  or  had 
them  reprinted  here,  and  found  a  ready  sale  for 
them.  At  the  first  Conference  in  1773  this  prac¬ 
tice  was  forbidden  and  under  Asbury’s  wise 
foresight  the  right  and  privilege  was  reserved  to 
the  denomination,  the  profits  not  to  go  to  any 
individual,  but  to  the  itinerant  preachers  as  a 
body.  Almost  from  the  first  the  itinerants  were 
the  agents  for  the  sale  of  the  denominational 
literature.  Abel  Stevens,  the  accomplished  his- 

155 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


torian  of  Methodism,  in  noting  an  action  of 
the  English  Wesleyan  Conference  of  1749,  that 
returns  should  be  made  quarterly  from  each 
society  to  the  Quarterly  Conference  for  books, 
says: 

Thus  began  that  organized  system  of  book  and  tract 
distribution  which  has  secured  to  Methodism  a  more  exten¬ 
sive  use  of  the  religious  press  than  can  be  found  in  any  other 
Protestant  denomination  of  our  day.10 

Asbury  appointed  John  Dickins  as  the  first 
agent  of  The  Methodist  Book  Concern,  gave 
his  Journal  to  the  new  institution  for  publication, 
and  edited  the  Minutes ,  the  Discipline ,  hymn 
book,  and  other  works,  for  the  same  end.  Out 
of  a  small  and  insignificant  beginning  it  has  be¬ 
come  the  largest  publishing  business,  perhaps, 
in  the  world,  its  average  annual  sales  amounting 
to  $3,500,000.  Its  profits  have  gone  for  the 
benefit  of  the  itinerancy. 

It  was  also  Bishop  Asbury  who  anticipated  the 
Tract  Society.  He  proposed  in  1808  that  one 
thousand  dollars  be  appropriated  from  The  Book 
Concern  for  the  printing  and  free  circulation  of 
religious  tracts.  In  1817  some  New  York  women 
organized  a  Tract  Society  which  eventually  be¬ 
came  the  Tract  Society  of  the  denomination. 

The  time  would  fail  to  show  how  strong  was 

10  History  of  Methodism,  Abel  Stevens,  vol.  I,  p.  326. 

156 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


the  influence  of  this  great  pioneer  in  promoting 
the  cause  of  temperance,  in  Annual  Conference 
action  as  early  as  1780,  against  the  making,  sell¬ 
ing,  using  of  intoxicants;  against  the  holding  of 
slaves  by  the  preachers  and  members,  and  in 
raising  funds  annually  for  superannuated 
preachers  and  the  widows  and  orphans  of  preach¬ 
ers.  The  church  has  never  failed  since  this  fund 
was  begun  through  Asbury’s  influence  to  make 
provision,  however  inadequate,  for  this  honor¬ 
able  purpose. 


157 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


CHAPTER  XII 

HIS  GOVERNING  CAPACITY 

QUITE  the  equal  of  John  Wesley  was  the 
pioneer  of  American  Methodism  in  admin¬ 
istrative  and  executive  ability,  and  this 
is  a  high  estimate,  if  we  accept  Stevens’  favor¬ 
able  comparison  of  the  English  leader  with 
Richelieu,  the  French  cardinal-premier.  Coming 
to  America  an  unknown  youth,  Asbury  had  to 
make  his  way  among  the  weak,  scattered 
societies  by  his  own  wisdom,  scant  experience, 
and  strength  of  mind  and  personality.  He  did 
not  even  have  the  advantage  of  a  commendatory 
letter  from  John  Wesley,  who,  when  later  he 
commissioned  George  Shadford,  wrote  in  a  cheer¬ 
ful  strain,  “I  let  you  loose,  George,  on  the  great 
continent  of  America”  to  “publish  your  message 
in  the  open  face  of  the  sun”  and  to  “do  all  the 
good  you  can.”  When  Asbury  and  Shadford 
met  they  became  fast  friends  and  the  former 
writes  of  their  delightful,  open-minded  conferences. 
In  this  quick  recognition  of  Shadford’s  qualities 
he  showed  that  necessary  element  of  leadership 
which  accurately  measures  the  strength  and  weak¬ 
nesses  of  men.  Those  most  familiar  with  him 

158 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


say  his  estimate  of  the  preachers,  whom  he  always 
appointed  solely  on  his  own  judgment,  without 
consultation  with  the  presiding  elders,  was  seldom 
wrong.  He  had  an  eye  that  seemed  to  search  the 
depths  of  the  personalities  and  discover  hidden 
powers  and  frailties.  As  his  responsibility  for 
stationing  the  itinerants  covered  a  period  of  more 
than  thirty  years,  in  which  he  ordained  over 
four  thousand  men,  his  knowledge  of  their  indi¬ 
vidual  qualities  and  abilities  must  have  been 
pretty  accurate  to  escape  serious  consequences. 

There  was  another  characteristic  of  Asbury 
very  desirable  in  those  having  authority  to  govern 
others:  he  first  learned  to  govern  himself.  He 
was  neither  hasty  nor  impatient  in  dealing  with 
men.  Those  who  rush  to  conclusions  and  to  their 
expression,  show  want  of  self-control.  This  man 
could  see  beneath  the  masks  most  people  wear, 
but  by  no  change  of  countenance  or  bearing  did 
he  reveal  what  he  saw.  He  constantly  prayed 
for  patience,  and  cultivated  it,  knowing  that  no 
man  is  entire  master  of  himself  who  loses  that 
humble  but  precious  quality.  His  Journal  shows 
that  he  sought  to  curb  his  tendency  to  impatience. 
All  agree  that  he  was  a  man  of  solemn  cast  of 
countenance,  suggestive  of  asceticism.  Self- 
repression,  his  burdens,  and  bodily  ills  made 
him  seem  severer  than  he  was;  but  he  could 
forget  these  things,  especially  in  preaching,  and 

159 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


was  often  borne  out  of  himself  as  he  dwelt  upon 
the  victories  and  glories  of  Christ’s  kingdom. 
He  was  often  in  a  cheerful  mood  and  his  person¬ 
ality  could  not  have  been  forbidding,  for  hosts 
and  hostesses  heartily  welcomed  his  visits  and 
children  were  attracted  to  him. 

Another  element  of  strength  in  his  leadership 
was  his  love  and  sympathy  for  the  men  whose 
lives  and  interests  were  so  largely  in  his  hands. 
Pie  was  ever  one  of  them.  He  appreciated  their 
work — they  were  the  fighting  force  of  the  church; 
if  they  succeeded,  the  church  advanced;  if  they 
failed,  the  church  lagged — they  must  have  the 
first  consideration.  He  made  a  list  early  in  his 
episcopal  career  of  all  the  Methodist  preachers 
on  the  Continent,  and  he  knew  each  personally 
and  particularly,  and  it  was  his  regular  habit 
to  pray  for  them.  On  occasion  he  wrote  to  them 
to  advise,  suggest,  and  encourage,  and  increased 
his  knowledge  of  them.  He  believed  he  knew 
them  better  than  anybody  else,  and  doubtless 
he  did.  He  heard  with  close  attention  their  re¬ 
ports  at  Conference,  and  no  session  was  satis¬ 
factory  to  him  in  which  their  experiences  and 
labors  were  not  fully  stated.  He  worked  side  by 
side  with  them;  he  was  not  above  them  but  one 
of  them — indeed,  in  labors  more  abundant  than 
they  all;  he  asked  for  himself  no  more  than  they 
had;  the  itinerant  preachers  got  a  salary  of  sixty  - 

1C0 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


four  dollars,  later  eighty  dollars,  a  year  and 
traveling  expenses.  He  was  content  with  the 
same.  When  he  held  a  Quarterly  Conference  in 
Maryland  in  1773,  where  Robert  Strawbridge 
received  eight  pounds  quarterage  and  Francis 
Asbury  and  John  King  six  pounds  each  he  did 
not  complain,  but  wrote:  “Great  love  subsisted 
among  us  at  this  meeting  and  we  parted  in 
peace.”  At  every  Conference  he  was  anxious 
that  the  deficits  in  their  meager  pittances  should 
be  made  up,  and  would  first  give  from  his  own 
slender  resources,  and  then  go  from  house  to 
house  with  a  subscription  list.  He  gave  his  per¬ 
sonal  belongings  more  than  once — coat,  shirt, 
watch — in  necessitous  cases.  Likewise  the  families 
of  preachers,  and  their  widows  and  orphans  be¬ 
came  his  care,  and  for  years  he  carried  about  a 
mite  subscription  for  the  benefit  of  the  suffering 
ministry,  and  the  day  before  his  death,  so  feeble 
he  could  not  move,  he  asked  to  have  the  list 
passed  for  gifts. 

He  had  no  petty  jealousies,  no  grievances,  no 
dislikes  to  be  avenged;  he  bore  attacks,  misrepre¬ 
sentations,  and  abuse  with  patience  and  remem¬ 
bered  nothing  of  them  in  stationing  the  preachers. 
John  Wesley  flayed  him  mistakenly  for  pride  and 
ambition,  and  Asbury  called  it  “a  bitter  pill”; 
but  he  swallowed  it,  and  it  did  not  make  him 
bitter.  Receiving  a  letter  attacking  him,  as  he 

161 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


came  from  his  knees,  his  only  remark  was,  “After 
reading  it  I  returned  to  my  knees.”  It  is  not 
so  much  a  matter  of  wonder,  therefore,  that  he 
was  successful  in  establishing  the  itinerancy  where 
conditions  and  personal  desires  of  the  preachers 
were  so  strong  against  it.  He  could  say  delib¬ 
erately  in  a  letter  to  the  General  Conference  of 
1792,  in  reviewing  the  many  verdicts  he  had 
passed  upon  itinerants,  “I  have  never  stationed 
a  preacher  through  enmity,  or  as  a  punishment,” 
and  could  add  with  the  conscientiousness  which 
marked  his  acts  and  utterances,  “I  have  acted 
for  the  glory  of  God,  the  good  of  the  people,  and 
to  promote  the  usefulness  of  the  preachers” — as 
sound  a  policy  as  any  dispenser  of  patronage  could 
possibly  devise.  This  is  not  to  say  that  the 
preachers  were  always  pleased — that  were  im¬ 
possible — but  that,  in  general,  as  loyal  men,  they 
were  content,  believing  that  the  bishop  had  done 
his  best. 

He  spent  a  great  deal  of  time  and  thought 
upon  the  appointments,  using  his  own  full  knowl¬ 
edge,  without  seeking  the  opinions  of  the  pre¬ 
siding  elders.  He  thought  confusion,  rather  than 
clarity  of  decision,  came  from  too  much  counsel. 
He  was  ready  to  hear  the  preacher  himself  if  he 
had  special  requests  to  make;  but  reached  his 
own  conclusions  with  the  most  painstaking  and 
conscientious  care.  This  duty  often  weighed 

162 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


upon  him,  and  he  felt  a  sense  of  relief  when  the 
stations  were  announced.  Entries  in  his  Journal 
show  how  this  responsibility  weighed  upon  him. 
The  Conference  at  Petersburg,  Virginia,  in  1793, 
presented,  he  says,  difficulties  respecting  the 
stations;  but  the  brethren  were  willing  to  go  where 
they  were  appointed  and  all  was  well.  This 
was  in  the  section  affected  by  the  O’ Kelly 
division.  Later,  at  another  Conference,  he  wrote 
it  was  4 ‘with  the  greatest  difficulty  I  could  unbend 
my  mind  from  the  business”  of  the  session,  mean¬ 
ing  the  appointments.  At  still  another  he  “chose 
not  to  preach  while  my  mind  was  so  clogged  with 
business.”  But  most  of  the  Conferences  “met  in 
unity  and  peace,  and  thus  ended,”  or  with  “not 
a  frown,  sign  of  sour  temper,  or  unkind  word”; 
or  “I  am  distressed  at  the  uneasiness  of  our 
people,”  who  “want  to  choose  their  own  preach¬ 
ers”;  or  “Close  work  and  great  harmony”;  or 
“Unity,  peace,  and  love.”  Such  expressions 
abound  in  his  Journal. 

When  the  preachers  came  to  know  him,  his 
utter  honesty,  his  singular  love  of  the  church  and 
the  brethren;  his  self-abnegation,  his  abounding 
sympathy  and  sacrifices,  his  large  knowledge  and 
his  confidence  in  his  careful  judgments  won  their 
hearts. 

Another  element  of  strength  in  his  competent 
leadership  was  the  conviction  that  it  was  God’s 

163 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


work  in  which  he  was  engaged,  God’s  cause, 
God’s  kingdom,  and  he  was  simply  God’s  instru¬ 
ment,  not  his  vicegerent,  as  the  Pope  thinks 
himself  to  be.  It  was  not  “My  church,”  “My 
movement,”  “My  victories,”  but  Christ’s  church, 
Christ’s  movement,  and  Christ’s  victories.  He 
did  not  claim  great  powers  for  himself  nor  great 
credit,  and  no  more  intimate  relation  to  God 
than  it  was  the  privilege  of  others  to  enjoy.  He 
knew  his  own  weaknesses  and  failings,  none 
better,  and  never  assumed  the  prophet’s  function 
of  “Thus  saith  the  Lord.”  God’s  word  was 
equally  open  to  others,  and  there  was  no  special 
revelation  to  himself  to  pass  down  to  the  church. 
Men  knew,  not  simply  from  his  sermons,  but 
from  his  everyday  life,  that  his  communion  with 
God  was  never  long  interrupted.  Too  much  talk, 
he  said  once,  and  too  little  prayer  made  him 
“barren  of  soul.”  He  wanted  always  to  know  the 
will  of  God  that  he  might  do  it. 

Asbury  was  the  hardest,  most  constant  worker 
of  all  the  itinerants.  He  never  spared  himself. 
He  could  not  be  idle,  save  when  illness  held  him; 
awake,  he  could  not  take  an  enforced  rest,  with¬ 
out  doing  something,  with  mind,  hand,  or  heart, 
even  if  it  were  only  amusing  and  instructing  the 
children.  He  read  and  studied  a  whole  library 
of  books;  wrote  a  thousand  letters  a  year;  kept 
up  his  Journals;  prepared  Minutes  of  Confer- 

164 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


ences  and  the  Discipline  for  publication;  was  in 
the  saddle  more  than  any  man  of  his  time; 
preached  more  sermons,  held  more  Conferences 
and  made  more  appointments,  ordained  more 
ministers,  conducted  more  funeral  services  than 
any  contemporary;  visited  the  cities,  towns,  ham¬ 
lets,  and  settlements  more  thoroughly  than  any 
politician,  and  with  the  care  of  all  the  churches 
upon  him  daily  wrought  out  an  effective  system 
of  government  and  discipline.  He  was  always  at 
work  never  for  himself,  but  ever  for  the  Master. 
Bishop  McKendree  wrote  of  his  colleague  shortly 
after  he  (McKendree)  was  elected  in  1808: 

I  am  favored  but  little  with  Father  Asbury’s  company. 
As  soon  as  Conference  is  over  we  part,  and  go  with  all  speed 
from  one  appointment  to  another  by  different  routes  to  meet 
at  the  next  Conference.  The  old  soldier  (Asbury)  travels 
sometimes  on  horseback  and  part  of  his  time  on  crutches. 
He  preaches  standing,  sitting,  and  on  his  knees,  as  the 
necessity  of  the  case  requires.  He  seems  determined  to 
labor  more  than  any  of  us. 

Asbury  was  a  man  of  affairs,  great  and  little, 
but  multitudinous.  A  Book  Concern,  a  literature, 
missions,  Sunday  schools,  distribution  of  Bibles 
and  tracts;  educational  institutions  and  schools 
for  children;  camp  meetings;  church  extension — 
what  enterprises  thronged  the  teeming  brain  of 
this  wonder-working  man! 

Administrative  and  executive  ability !  His  mind 

165 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


would  have  been  crammed  with  chaotic  confu¬ 
sion,  if  he  had  had  no  genius  for  systematic 
planning  and  working.  Asbury’s  colleague,  Doctor 
Coke,  had  a  high  estimate  of  his  character  and 
abilities.  He  wrote  in  his  Journal ,  published  in 
the  (American)  Arminian  Magazine:1 

I  exceedingly  reverence  Mr.  Asbury.  He  has  so  much 
simplicity,  like  a  child;  so  much  wisdom  and  consideration; 
so  much  meekness  and  love;  and  under  all  this,  though 
hardly  to  be  perceived,  so  much  command  and  authority, 
that  he  is  exactly  qualified  for  a  primitive  bishop. 

Nicholas  Snethen,  whose  name  is  imperishably 
connected  with  the  history  of  early  Methodism, 
speaks  of  the  “great  moral  courage”  of  Asbury 
and  of  “the  mighty  energies  of  his  mind.”  He 
was  “a  star  of  the  first  magnitude,”  with  “the 
directing  mind  and  animating  soul  necessary  to 
direct  and  move  the  whole  body”  of  the  min¬ 
istry.  The  impulse  he  gave  to  experimental  and 
practical  religion  was  one  of  his  greatest  achieve¬ 
ments. 

Ezekiel  Cooper,  one  of  his  intimate  friends, 
said  Asbury  gained  “a  kind  of  irresistible  influ¬ 
ence”  like  a  ruler  in  Israel,  in  nearly  every  circle 
in  which  he  moved.  Take  him  for  all  in  all,  “no 
man  in  America  ever  came  up  to  his  standard.”2 

No  man  better  knew  how  to  put  aside  self  and 

1  Centennial  History  of  American  Methodism,  John  Atkinson,  p.  294. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  296. 


1 66 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


selfish  interests.  He  never  worked  for  himself, 
or  fortune,  or  fame.  He  had  no  ends  of  his  own 
to  serve.  He  counted  himself  the  servant  of 
the  living  God,  and  sought  his  direction,  approval, 
and  glory,  and  cared  not  one  whit  whether  his 
name  was  listed  with  the  great.  God  was  always 
first,  supreme,  with  him,  the  church  second,  the 
preachers  and  people  third.  His  own  ambition, 
if  that  be  the  right  word,  was  to  accomplish  the 
utmost  possible  for  God  and  humanity.  His 
intimate  traveling  companions  bear  testimony  to 
the  fact  that,  emptied  of  worldly  ambitions  and 
of  self,  he  was  filled  with  the  spirit  of  devotion 
to  God  and  humanity. 

Withal  he  had  the  air  of  one  accustomed  to 
marshal  and  direct  men,  of  one  having  authority 
and  knowing  how  to  use  it.  Being  one  of  a  con¬ 
siderable  company  journeying  in  a  section  of 
the  West  wdiere  Indians  on  the  warpath  were 
likely  to  be  met,  with  common  consent  he  be¬ 
came  the  organizer  of  the  little  force  for  self¬ 
protection.  He  gave  to  each  a  station  and  duty 
and  himself  patroled  the  camp  through  the  night 
to  guard  against  surprise.  It  seemed  appro¬ 
priate  that  he  should  preside  where  preachers 
assembled.  He  had  autocratic  powers  and  exer¬ 
cised  them,  but  with  reason  and  not  as  a  tyrant. 
Methodism  could  hardly  have  succeeded  without 
a  leader  with  authority.  It  is  not  said  that  he 

167 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


ruled  imperiously;  the  right  of  the  preachers  in 
discussion  and  decision  of  questions  belonging  to 
them  he  did  not  abridge.  But  his  knowledge, 
force  of  will,  and  character,  all  so  evident,  made 
an  impression  of  competency  which  few  hesitated 
to  recognize  and  accept.  Joshua  Marsden,  a 
British  preacher,  serving  in  Canada,  says  the 
preachers,  “all  tenacious  of  liberty  and  equal 
rights,”  readily  submitted  to  Asbury ’s  authority 
“that  grew  out  of  his  labors,”  was  “founded  on 
reason,  maintained  with  inflexible  integrity,  and 
exercised  only  for  the  good  of  all.”3  His  moral 
force  was  well-nigh  irresistible.  In  his  Journal 
(page  407)  will  be  found  this  entry:  “I  have  written 
in  the  most  pointed  manner  to  my  dear  brethren 
in  Baltimore  to  establish  prayer  meetings  in 
every  part  of  the  town.  It  must  be  done.”  Doubt¬ 
less  it  was  done. 

About  most  things  with  which  he  had  to  deal 
Asbury  showed  much  prudence.  He  was  averse 
to  controversy  and  would  not  allow  himself  to 
be  drawn  into  it,  observing  that  he  was  clear  it 
ought  to  be  avoided;  “because  we  have  better 
work  to  do  and  because  it  is  too  common  when 
debates  run  high  there  are  wrong  words  and 
tempers  indulged  in  on  both  sides.”4  He  had 
plenty  of  opportunity  to  take  a  hand  in  disputes, 

3  The  Heart  of  Asbury’ s  Journal ,  Ezra  Squier  Tipple,  pp.  658-89. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  310. 


168 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


but  he  did  not.  He  showed  restraint  and  dis¬ 
cretion  in  the  method  he  pursued  with  Straw- 
bridge,  O’Kelly,  and  others.  Holding  a  Quar¬ 
terly  Conference  in  Strawbridge’s  section,  he 
opened  the  question  of  observing  the  rule  of  the 
first  Conference  in  Philadelphia  in  1773,  that 
unordained  preachers  must  not  administer  the 
sacraments.  Strawbridge  refused  to  comply,  or 
even  to  administer  under  “the  direction  of  the 
Assistant.5’5  Asbury  did  not  try  to  compel  obedi¬ 
ence,  nor  did  he  bring  on  a  controversy.  When 
preachers  in  Virginia  insisted  on  going  further 
and  ordaining  men,  Asbury  tried  to  persuade 
them  not  to  depart  from  Wesley’s  rules  but  did 
not  engage  them  in  argument.  In  the  end  his 
steady  pressure  for  discipline  and  order  prevailed. 
So  with  O’Kelly;  he  did  not  challenge  him  to 
defend  his  threatened  secession,  nor  upbraid  him 
with  inconsistency  in  denying  the  validity  of 
Asbury ’s  ordaining  powers,  which  he  had  accepted 
for  himself  and  had  imparted  to  others.  He  an¬ 
swered  O’Kelly’s  attacks  with  a  kind,  conciliatory 
letter,  called  on  him  when  he  was  sick  and  sought 
to  persuade  him  by  concessions  to  remain  in  the 
ranks.6  He  did  not  succeed;  but  he  narrowed  the 
secession,  which  soon  dwindled. 


6  Ibid.,  p.  50. 

6  Ibid.,  pp.  289,  350,  352,  353,  371,  460,  515. 

1G9 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


So  too  in  the  matter  of  the  Council,  Asbury ’s 
pet  scheme  to  make  unnecessary  frequent  meetings 
of  the  General  Conference  of  all  the  preachers, 
which  he  feared  might  enact  unwise  legislation 
and  interfere  with  the  development  of  the  denom¬ 
ination  along  safe  lines.  His  purpose  was  good, 
but  the  plan  open  to  objection.  He  selected  the 
members  of  the  Council  himself.  The  first,  in 
1789,  consisted  of  eleven  members  besides  Asbury. 
It  was  attacked,  and  Asbury  got  tired  of  explain¬ 
ing  and  defending  it  in  the  twenty-four  Confer¬ 
ences,  and  it  only  met  a  second  time.  His  author¬ 
ity  might  have  forced  this  expedient  on  the 
church,  but  it  would  have  caused  dissension,  if 
not  division,  and  the  bishop  abandoned  it. 

Apprehensive  of  interference  with  the  prerog¬ 
atives  of  the  appointing  power  by  the  General 
Conference  of  1792,  the  bishop  wrote  a  letter 
excusing  his  absence  (Bishop  Coke  was  present), 
saying  it  would  be  better  that  he  have  no  hand 
in  the  making  of  laws  he  would  have  to  execute. 
“I  am  one,”  he  wrote,  “ye  are  many.  ...  I  scorn 
to  solicit  votes.  ...  I  am  not  fond  of  altercations; 
we  cannot  please  everybody  and  sometimes  not 
ourselves.” 

In  the  matter  of  rescinding  the  obligation 
undertaken  by  the  General  Conference  of  1784, 
in  its  minute  on  John  Wesley,  to  “obey  his  com¬ 
mands,”  Asbury  was  blamed,  but  he  showed  that  he 

170 


IX  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


had  nothing  to  do  with  it,  and  that  he  “sat  mute 
and  modest”  when  it  was  rescinded  four  years  later. 
Wesley  had  made  request  by  letter  that  Richard 
Whatcoat  be  elected  and  consecrated  to  assist 
Asbury,  but  the  General  Conference,  not  think¬ 
ing  it  wise  that  Wesley  in  England  should  make 
selections  for  America,  accepted  Coke’s  prop¬ 
osition  to  remain  and  assist  Asbury  and  deemed 
it  unnecessary  to  have  another  bishop.  In  1792, 
however,  Whatcoat  was  elected,  and  Lee,  the 
historian,  said,  “Never  did  holy  hands  rest  on 
holier  head.”  In  this  delicate  matter,  as  in  others, 
Asbury  showed  a  restraint  that  was  masterly, 
winning  increased  respect  and  confidence  in  Amer¬ 
ica  and  the  approval  of  John  Wesley  himself, 
who  saw  that  he  had  been  misinformed  and  hasty 
in  his  former  criticisms  of  the  American  leader. 
The  latter  could  easily  have  quarreled  with  Coke 
over  his  officious  proposal  in  1791  to  Bishop 
White,  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  that 
the  two  bodies  be  united.  Coke  admitted  that 
he  had  not  consulted  Asbury  in  the  matter,  and 
that  when  he  did  reveal  it,  Asbury,  “with  that 
caution  which  peculiarly  characterizes  him,  gave 
no  opinion  on  the  subject.”  A  better  illustration 
of  the  latter’s  good  sense  and  restraint  it  would 
be  hard  to  find.  He  could  have  launched  a  hot 
and  hurtful  controversy,  but  did  not. 

Bishop  Asbury  always  had  a  forward  look. 

171 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


His  vision  was  bent  upon  the  future.  He  thought 
about  what  Methodism  was  to  be,  and  was  deeply 
concerned  that  the  foundations  should  be  so  laid 
as  to  provide  for  permanency  and  future  develop¬ 
ment.  He  believed  as  John  Wesley  believed 
that  it  had  a  great  future.  In  1798  he  wrote: 

I  make  no  doubt  the  Methodists  are  and  will  be  a  numerous 
and  wealthy  people,  and  their  preachers  who  follow  us  will 
not  know  our  struggles  but  by  comparing  improved  state 
of  the  country  with  what  it  was  in  our  days  as  exhibited  in 
my  Journal  and  other  records  of  that  day.8 

Ten  years  later,  speaking  of  the  progress  of  an¬ 
other  denomination,  he  said,  “But  a  despised 
and  dispersed  people  will  possess  this  land.” 

And  so  while  he  lived  and  worked  and  planned 
in  the  present,  his  plans  looked  toward  the  future. 
As  we  have  seen  in  Chapter  XI,  there  is  scarcely 
an  activity,  institution,  or  society  of  full-orbed 
Methodism  which  he  did  not  anticipate.  The 
Book  Concern  was  founded  early  in  his  day, 
and  his  suggestions  for  the  circulation  of  needed 
literature,  the  Bible  and  tracts  were  put  into 
operation.  His  notion  of  the  literature  The  Book 
Concern  was  ready  to  furnish,  in  the  last  pages 
of  the  volume  of  Minutes  of  the  Conferences, 
from  1773  to  1794,  included  Wesley’s  Notes,  his 
Journal ,  his  Life ,  and  his  Sermons,  Fletcher’s 
Works,  Baxter’s  Saints’  Rest,  Asbury’s  Journal, 

The  Heart  of  Asburys  Journal,  Ezra  Squier  Tipple,  p.  441. 

172 


8 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Doddridge’s  Sermons  to  Children,  Children  s  In¬ 
structions,  Garrettson’s  Journal,  a  Hymn  Book, 
with  three  hundred  hymns,  Thomas  a  Kempis’s 
Imitation,  and  Wesley’s  abridged  Family  Adviser 
and  Primitive  Physic — no  mean  list  of  publica¬ 
tions  for  an  institution  that  was  only  five  years 
old.  And  out  of  his  beginnings  came  the  Mis¬ 
sionary  and  Church  Extension  Society,  the  Boards 
of  Sunday  Schools,  Education,  Conference  Claim¬ 
ants,  and  the  like.  Not  even  John  Wesley  fore¬ 
saw  more  clearly  the  possible  lines  of  future 
development  than  Francis  Asbury. 


173 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


CHAPTER  XIII 

EARLY  METHODISTS  AND  EDUCATION 


THERE  are  some  entries  in  Asbury’s  Jour¬ 
nal ,  which  taken  by  themselves  might  be 
regarded  as  an  indication  that  he  did  not 
appreciate  education.  Here  is  one,  under  date 
of  December  7,  1806: 

As  to  Presbyterian  ministers  and  all  ministers  of  the 
gospel,  I  will  treat  them  with  great  respect,  but  I  shall  ask 
no  favors  of  them.  To  humble  ourselves  before  those  who 
think  themselves  so  much  above  Methodist  preachers  by 
worldly  honors,  by  learning,  and  especially  by  salary,  will 
do  them  no  good. 

Asbury  was  not  opposed  to  learning,  else  he 
would  not  have  studied  so  hard  to  acquire  Latin, 
Greek,  and  Hebrew,  to  acquaint  himself  with 
theology,  history,  literature,  science,  etc.  Neither 
was  he  opposed  to  educational  institutions,  or  he 
would  not  have  taken  upon  himself  the  burden  of 
Cokesbury  College,  at  Abingdon,  Maryland,  nor 
of  Bethel  Academy  in  Kentucky,  and  academies 
in  Virginia,  Georgia,  and  elsewhere.  It  is  true 
he  said  he  never  wanted  a  college  at  Cokesbury, 
but  a  school ,  which  was  not  to  pronounce  against 
colleges  where  they  could  be  obtained,  but  to 

174 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


prefer  that  the  Abingdon  enterprise  should  be 
called  what  it  actually  was — a  school;  a  high 
school  in  grade,  which  taught  the  languages  to 
some  extent,  and  was  intended  to  train  men  for 
the  ministry.  Asbury  never  had  any  feeling 
against  institutions  like  Yale  and  Princeton;  but 
he  knew  that  Methodism  was  not  in  a  position, 
either  in  numbers,  wealth  or  trained  scholarship, 
to  found  and  build  up  a  college. 

The  observations  he  permitted  himself  to  make 
occasionally,  like  that  quoted  above,  were  pro¬ 
voked  by  the  attitude  of  some  of  the  college- 
bred  ministers  of  other  denominations  who  looked 
down  as  from  a  superior  height  of  scholarship 
upon  many  Methodist  preachers,  also  upon  a 
number  of  Baptist  preachers,  not  believing  that 
anyone  was  fitted  for  the  sacred  office  who  was 
not  a  college  graduate.  This  assumed  superi¬ 
ority  was  at  times  rather  galling  to  the  itinerants, 
many  of  whom  were  able  preachers  and  would 
have  graced  any  pulpit.  Some  had  little  educa¬ 
tion  and  probably  did  violence  to  the  King’s 
English,  as  unpolished  speakers.  Their  strong 
leader  used  the  best  materials  he  could  obtain 
under  the  circumstances,  making  sure  that  though 
literary  qualifications  might  not  be  satisfactory, 
all  were  good  gospel  witnesses.  Some  one  told 
him  there  was  a  special  call  for  4 ‘learned”  men 
for  the  ministry.  His  gentle  response  was:  “Some 

175 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


may  think  so;  but  I  presume  a  simple  man  can 
speak  and  write  for  simple,  plain  people  upon 
simple  truths.”  This  observation  appears  in  his 
Journal  immediately  after  a  reference  to  “a 
melting,  nervous  discourse”  by  Nicholas  Snethen, 
one  of  his  traveling  companions.  “Hearts,”  he 
added,  “were  strangely  moved  by  the  truth,”  and 
this  he  rightly  considered  evidence  of  a  call  of  God. 

Not  all  the  apostles  were  learned  like  Paul. 
Peter  was  not.  He  was  a  fisherman,  and  you 
cannot  expect  fishermen  to  be  great  scholars. 
But  Peter  knew  how  to  preach  the  gospel  well 
enough  to  make  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  the 
divine  power  descended,  an  ever-memorable  day 
in  the  Christian  calendar.  He  was  a  plain,  simple- 
minded  man;  but  he  had  a  great  spiritual  expe¬ 
rience  and  knew  how  to  tell  it.  He  was  a  good 
witness.  And  good  witnesses  were  Wesley’s  itin¬ 
erants  in  England  and  Asbury’s  itinerants  in 
America.  Some  when  they  began  their  simple 
ministry  had  little  knowledge  of  the  art  of  public 
speech,  or  of  English  grammar,  or  of  logic,  or  of 
rhetoric,  or  of  theology.  They  were  all  laymen 
in  America  until  the  end  of  1784.  Not  one  of  them 
was  ordained,  and  they  were  serving  not  churches 
but  societies — little  companies  of  believers.  There 
were  no  churches  and  no  sacraments  until  the 
ordained  ministry  was  instituted.  But  they  were 
men  who  knew  that  their  sins  had  been  forgiven, 

176 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


that  salvation  by  faith  and  regeneration  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  had  come  to  them,  and  they  had  the 
witness  of  the  Spirit  to  these  things.  They  were 
no  longer  blind  men,  groping  in  darkness  for  the 
light,  for  the  light  had  come  to  them  and  they 
could  see.  And  as  they  preached  and  prayed, 
they  studied  and  made  themselves  familiar  with 
the  Bible,  and  were  effective  witnesses  who,  as 
they  grew  in  grace,  grew  also  in  knowledge  and 
ability.  The  itinerancy  was  no  mean  training 
school,  and  Francis  Asbury  was  no  mean  leader 
and  trainer. 

Methodists  were  not  the  only  denomination 
which  made  larger  use  of  laymen.  The  great 
awakening  in  which  Whitefield,  Jonathan 
Edwards,  and  the  Tennents  were  leaders,  gave 
rise  to  4 ‘New  Lights,”  as  they  were  called  among 
the  Presbyterian,  Congregational,  and  Baptist 
churches.  The  order  of  preaching  in  these  denom¬ 
inations  was  described  as  “a  cold  intellectualism.” 
Asbury  heard  some  of  its  representatives  and  saw 
evidence  of  culture,  but  little  spirituality  in  their 
utterances.  One  of  the  results  of  the  Edwards- 
Tennent- Whitefield  revival  was  to  call  attention 
to  this  pleasant,  but  unfruitful  style  of  preach¬ 
ing,  and  among  stirring  episodes  of  the  period  was 
a  sermon  by  a  Presbyterian  divine  on  “The 
Danger  of  an  Unconverted  Ministry,”1  which 


1  Gilbert  Tennent. 


177 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


provoked  much  discussion  and  was  one  of  the 
causes  of  the  division  of  the  Presbyterians  into 
factions  known  as  '"Old  Side,”  including  the 
Scotch-Irish,  and  “New  Side,”  taking  the  New- 
England  view. 

Asbury  never  had  this  peril  to  face  in  the 
itinerant  ranks,  for  which  he  was,  doubtless, 
devoutly  thankful.  The  Presbyterian  Church 
had  from  the  first  a  learned  ministry,  recruiting 
from  the  Scotch  universities,  then  from  the  New 
England  colleges,  and  finally  and  most  of  all 
from  Princeton,  stiffly  Calvinistic,  but  feeling  the 
influence  of  the  great  awakening.  It  was  an 
eminently  respectable  church,  ministry  and  mem¬ 
bership  being  imbued  with  high  ideas  and  strong 
convictions  on  moral  and  political  as  well  as  on 
doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  subjects.  They  had 
great  men  in  the  pulpit,  in  the  State,  and  in 
society,  and  they  were  firm  as  a  rock  in  fidelity 
to  their  settled  opinions.  The  church  never 
wanted  to  be  popular  and  did  not  court  the  masses. 
It  saw  the  Methodist  and  Baptist  denominations 
growing  much  more  rapidly  than  itself,  without 
feeling  disturbed  by  the  charge  that  it  was  unpro¬ 
gressive.  Holding  that  the  best  use  of  intelligent 
and  spiritual  laymen  was  to  make  elders  and 
deacons  of  them,  it  was  compelled  to  witness, 
over  its  strenuous  protests,  a  large  body  of  Pres¬ 
byterian  members  and  ministers  in  the  Cumberland 

178 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Valley  letting  down  the  bars  to  an  uneducated 
ministry  and  organizing  a  new  branch,  with  no 
iron-clad  rules  barring  the  ministry  to  spiritual 
but  uneducated  men,  and  with  a  theology  not 
rigidly  Calvinistic  but  a  compromise  between 
Calvinism  and  Arminianism.  A  hundred  years 
later  they  welcomed  back  a  considerable  pro¬ 
portion  of  the  wanderers  to  a  larger  and  less 
exclusive  fold.2 

What  would  have  been  the  condition  of  Amer¬ 
ican  Christianity,  if  John  and  Charles  Wesley, 
and  Thomas  Coke,  of  Oxford  University,  and 
Francis  Asbury,  of  the  itinerant  training  school, 
had  insisted  on  college  men  only  for  the  minis¬ 
try?  It  is  not  necessary  to  search  for  an  answer. 
The  Baptists  would  have  gained  twice  as  fast 
and  Methodists  would  have  been  select,  but 
few  in  number.  The  prophetic  vision  of  Asbury 
saw  unconverted  multitudes  thronging  the  cities 
and  towns  and  hurrying  along  the  highways  to 
populate  the  wilderness.  Like  the  Master,  he 
saw  great  fields  white  to  the  harvest,  but  few 
harvesters,  and  he  prayed  earnestly  and  con¬ 
tinuously  the  Lord  of  the  harvest  to  send  forth 
reapers  into  the  fields  to  gather  the  grain.  Obvi- 

2  Cumberland  Presbyterian,  the  outcome  of  a  revival  in  Tennessee, 
Kentucky,  and  other  states.  It  adopted  a  confession  which  softened 
the  decrees  of  the  Westminster  Confession,  declaring  the  sovereignty 
of  God,  but  also  the  free  agency  of  man.  Part  of  the  Church  was 
reunited  with  the  main  body  in  1910,  a  century  after  its  organization. 

179 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


ously  to  reach  the  unconverted  was  the  first  and 
most  pressing  duty.  It  could  not  be  postponed 
until  ministers  were  educated;  it  could  not  be 
put  off  until  a  church  was  organized,  with  a 
ministry  and  the  sacraments;  it  could  not  wait 
for  the  formation  of  an  adequate  ecclesiastical 
system.  It  was  the  King’s  business  and  it  re¬ 
quired  haste. 

Congregationalism  had  been  in  America  since 
the  landing  of  the  Pilgrims.  It  had  an  educated 
and  able  ministry;  it  had  two  strong  colleges  to 
educate  recruits;  it  had  well-organized  churches, 
and  it  had  made  rough  and  rocky  New  England 
an  intellectual,  religious,  and  prosperous  section. 
Bacon  says: 

The  State-Church  and  the  Church-State  did  not  cease  to 
be  until  they  had  accomplished  that  for  New  England  which 
has  never  been  accomplished  elsewhere  in  America — the 
dividing  of  the  settled  regions  into  definite  parishes,  each 
with  its  church  and  its  learned  minister.3 

Their  idea  of  a  threefold  ministry — pastor,  teacher, 
ruling  elder — had  failed,  says  the  same  author, 
but  their  dream  of  a  Christian  state  in  the  New 
World,  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness,  had  been 
nobly  realized.  New  England  Puritanism  had 
some  hard  and  unloving  traits,  but  its  rock 


3  History  of  American  Christianity,  Leonard  Woolsey  Bacon,  pp. 
129-130. 


180 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


foundations  were  covered  with  the  beautiful 
blooms  and  fruitage  of  noble  Christian  character. 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  inherited  the 
self-consciousness  of  the  mother  church  of  Eng¬ 
land,  of  apostolic  descent,  apostolic  episcopacy 
and  ministry,  an  incomparable  ritual,  and  the 
perfection  of  regularity,  to  all  of  which  it  must 
hold  fast  at  all  risks.  .It  did  not  recognize  any 
good  in  Wesley’s  work  that  was  not  more  than 
counterbalanced  by  its  irregularities.  Too  late 
came  the  feeling  that  it  might  have  taken  the 
infant  to  its  own  capacious  bosom,  and  too  late 
the  Anglican  Church  recognized  the  great  leader 
in  Westminster  Abbey,  the  national  mausoleum. 
In  America  the  Episcopal  Church  was  left  prostrate 
by  the  Revolution,  which  forced  many  rectors 
to  return  to  England,  and  could  not  help  itself 
until  the  mother  church  gave  it  the  apostolic 
episcopacy  (after  the  organization  of  the  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church).  It  has  grown  in  power 
and  influence,  but  it  was  not  ready  to  seek  the 
unconverted  multitude  when  Methodism  bent  to 
the  task,  though  some  of  its  clergy  were  sym¬ 
pathetic  and  helpful. 

The  Baptists  seemed  to  human  foresight  to 
have  little  chance  of  becoming  very  numerous. 
They  held  principles  that  everywhere  challenged 
opposition.  Their  doctrines  respecting  baptism — 
that  the  only  scriptural  mode  is  immersion,  that 

181 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


only  those  who  make  confession  of  faith  are  the 
proper  subjects  of  it,  that  the  Lord’s  table  is  for 
immersed  believers  only,  that  the  baptism  of 
infants  has  no  scriptural  warrant — all  ran  counter 
to  the  faith  and  practice  of  other  denominations. 
In  addition  they  fought  the  battle  for  religious 
liberty  as  against  churches  enjoying  state  sup¬ 
port,  and  were  in  consequence  persecuted  in  New 
England,  excepting  Rhode  Island,  where  Roger 
Williams  had  secured  liberty  of  conscience,  though 
he  opposed  Quakerism  strenuously,  in  Virginia 
and  elsewhere.  But  they  were  ready  defenders 
of  their  peculiar  views,  and  seemed  to  thrive  on 
opposition  and  controversy.  Their  constant  ap¬ 
peal  to  the  Bible,  the  law  and  the  testimony 
won  them  solid  support. 

They  had  some  educated  ministers  (President 
Dunster,  of  Harvard  College,  was  an  early  con¬ 
vert,  like  Roger  Williams,  and  later  Charles 
Chauncy,  another  Harvard  president),  but  their 
sources  of  supply  were  not  equal  to  the  demand 
created  by  their  rapid  growth,  and  they  did  not 
refuse  to  ordain  men  who  had  not  been  to  col¬ 
lege.  In  1812  the  Baptists,  not  including  the 
companies  which  were  Arminian  in  doctrine,  had 
become  a  body  with  nearly  173,000  members, 
more  than  double  the  number  of  ten  years  before, 
with  those  of  Virginia,  where  persecution  had 
been  sharpest,  in  the  lead  numerically,  Kentucky, 

182 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


New  York,  and  Georgia  coming  next  in  order. 
It  is  a  curious  and  interesting  fact  that  the 
Methodists  numbered  in  1810  nearly  175,000. 
They  were  running  nearly  neck  and  neck  with 
the  Baptists,  probably  being  a  few  thousand 
ahead  in  1812.  One  fifth  of  the  Methodists  of 
1812  were  Negroes.  The  Baptists  have  had  for 
years  the  largest  constituency  of  colored  people 
of  any  denomination  in  the  United  States,  the 
Methodists  standing  second. 

The  first  decade  of  the  century  was  a  period 
of  widespread  revivals,  which  indicated  a  popular 
movement,  and  involved  the  problem  of  a  suffi¬ 
cient  ministerial  supply.  The  mass  of  Baptists 
“were  indifferent  or  hostile  to  ministerial  educa¬ 
tion,  and  circumstances  were  such  that  a  high 
standard  of  literary  and  theological  preparation 
for  the  ministry  would  in  any  case  have  been 
unattainable.4  Those  converted  under  the  minis¬ 
try  of  “New  Light”  men,  caught  the  enthusiasm 
of  their  “emotional  preaching,”  and  seeing  that 
they  won  more  souls  than  the  educated  preachers, 
they  deemed  education  not  only  unnecessary  but 
harmful.  Coupled  with  this  opinion  was  a  strong 
prejudice  among  Baptists  against  ministerial  sal¬ 
aries.  Not  a  few  of  their  ministers  lived  on  farms 
which  yielded  a  fair  support.  These  had  oppor- 

4  History  of  Baptist  Churches  in  the  United  States ,  Albert  Henry 
Newman,  pp.  380-381. 


183 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


tunity  for  study  and  improved  it.  But  many 
never  studied  and  never  became  instructive 
preachers.  “Noisy  declamation  in  unnatural  tones 
accompanied  by  violent  physical  exercises,  and 
manifest  emotional  excitement,  in  too  many  cases 
took  the  place  of  intelligent  exposition  of  the 
truth  made  vital  by  the  indwelling  power  of  the 
Spirit.”5  The  result  was  that  the  cities  were 
neglected,  educated  men  preferring  country  pas¬ 
torates  because  they  could  be  more  independent 
on  their  own  farms.  The  Baptist  increase  was 
least  in  New  England  and  greatest  in  the  South 
and  on  the  border,  where  the  denomination  holds 
the  lead  to-day  of  all  Protestant  bodies,  the  white 
and  colored  Conventions  constituting  three  fourths 
of  the  three  large  Baptist  bodies  in  America. 

Philadelphia  and  New  England  were  the  chief 
centers  for  the  ministry  having  college  training. 
Brown  University,  in  Providence,  Rhode  Island, 
was  one  of  the  earliest  Baptist  institutions,  and 
colleges  were  planned  elsewhere,  not  so  much  for 
the  preparation  of  ministers,  however,  as  for 
general  education  of  Baptists.  Differences  on 
this  and  other  subjects  provoked  much  discussion, 
and  gave  rise  in  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth 
century  to  various  divisions,  the  chief  one  arising 
from  strenuous  opposition  to  Sunday  schools, 

5  History  of  Baptist  Churches  in  the  United  States,  Albert  Henry 
Newman,  p.  382. 


184 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


benevolent  societies — missionary,  Bible,  educa¬ 
tional,  and  the  like;  but  the  Primitive,  or  Anti- 
Mission  Baptists  are  not  now  a  large  body,  and 
are  gradually  declining. 

The  cause  of  education  achieved  a  signal 
triumph  long  since  among  the  Baptists,  who  have 
a  long  list  of  universities,  colleges,  and  theolog¬ 
ical  seminaries,  and  also  among  other  smaller 
denominations,  which  for  many  years  resisted 
colleges  and  even  academies  as  likely  to  pervert 
the  faith,6  but  finally  succumbed  to  the  spirit 
of  the  times. 

Francis  Asbury  wanted  educational  facilities  for 
the  Methodists,  establishing,  as  we  have  seen, 
good  schools  in  Maryland,  Georgia,  Kentucky, 
Virginia,  and  elsewhere.  But  he  also  proposed 
primary  schools,  issuing  a  beautifully  worded 
address  to  “the  Brethren  of  the  United  Societies 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,”  printed  in 
the  Conference  Minutes  of  1791,  suggesting  that 
schools  be  provided  as  generally  as  possible, 
separately  for  boys  and  girls  of  their  own  families, 
and  for  the  poor  of  the  neighborhood.  He  says 
he  is  happy  to  see  “so  many  thousands  of  the 

6  The  Dunkards,  trine  immersionists,  and  strict  in  nonconformity 
to  the  world,  who  came  to  America  from  Germany  early  in  the  eigh¬ 
teenth  century,  were  long  bitterly  opposed  to  educational  institutions, 
taking  at  their  General  Conference  unfavorable  action  nearly  fifty 
years  ago  on  an  inquiry  as  to  whether  a  high  school  was  not  permissible. 
No,  it  said,  and  quoted,  “Be  not  high-minded,  but  condescend  to  men 
of  low  estate,”  as  scriptural  authority. 

185 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


present  generation  happy  subjects  of  knowledge 
and  grace,”  and  now  very  greatly  desired  that 
“the  key  of  knowledge”  may  be  given  to  the 
children  of  the  rising  generation.  This  worthy 
purpose  was  not  to  be  achieved,  at  least  in  the 
way  the  bishop  proposed,  but  it  showed  the  bent 
of  his  mind  that  Methodists  should  be  intelligent. 

It  is  not  to  be  inferred  that  Methodism  appealed 
only  to  the  poor,  ignorant,  and  wicked  classes. 
Asbury  speaks  with  delight  in  his  Journal ,  No¬ 
vember  6,  1772,  of  what  he  saw  in  Maryland: 

Men  who  feared  neither  God  nor  regarded  man — swearers, 
liars,  cock-fighters,  card-players,  horse-racers,  drunkards, 
etc. — are  now  so  changed  as  to  become  new  men,  and  they 
are  filled  with  the  praises  of  God.  This  is  the  Lord’s  work 
and  it  is  marvelous  in  our  eyes. 

Every  revival  brought  notorious  characters  to 
repentance,  and  this  is  always  marvelous.  But 
there  was  only  one  prodigal  in  the  family  de¬ 
scribed  by  the  Saviour’s  parable.  And  when  he 
repented  and  returned  it  was  a  great  event  worthy 
of  a  unique  celebration,  while  the  older  brother, 
faithful  to  the  family,  complained  that  he  was 
overlooked.  But  this  seems  to  be  the  order  of 
the  Kingdom.  Christ  said:  “Joy  shall  be  in  heaven 
over  one  sinner  that  repenteth  more  than  over 
ninety  and  nine  just  persons  who  need  no  repent¬ 
ance.”  There  was  also  the  larger  class  of  the 
poor  and  respectable,  and  to  these  Methodism 

186 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


also  appealed,  and  a  smaller  class  of  the  edu¬ 
cated,  and  to  these  also  Methodism  appealed 
from  the  first.  Asbury  was  very  welcome  to  the 
houses  of  men  like  Judge  Thomas  White,  United 
States  Senator  Bassett,  and  Judge  Barratt,  of 
Delaware,  of  the  Livingstone  family  in  New 
York,  of  Governor  Tiffin,  of  Ohio,  and  other 
eminent  men,  and  these  with  other  people  of 
wealth,  character,  and  standing  were  members 
of  Methodist  societies. 

It  was  a  thing  for  rejoicing  that  Methodism 
had  the  poor  with  it  from  the  beginning,  and  it 
will  be  a  matter  of  profound  regret  if  the  time 
should  ever  come  when  this  is  no  longer  true. 
Moreover,  it  is  from  this  most  numerous  class 
that  statesmen,  leaders  in  industry,  commerce, 
in  the  professions,  including  the  ministry,  in 
wealth  and  influence  are  recruited,  and  a  true 
Church  of  Christ  will  always  be  an  inspiration 
and  a  help  in  such  development.  It  is  to  those 
of  large  means  and  spiritual  attainments  that 
Methodism  owes  the  development  of  her  great 
educational  institutions  at  home  and  abroad. 

In  one  of  the  early  Conferences  of  the  Wes¬ 
leyan  Church  of  England  may  be  found  this 
striking  and  urgent  injunction  to  the  preachers: 
‘ ‘Preach  on  education.  ‘But  I  have  no  gift  for 
this.’  Gift  or  no  gift,  you  are  to  do  it,  else  you 
are  not  to  be  called  a  Methodist  preacher.” 

187 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


It  is  extremely  unlikely  that  Francis  Asbury 
was  unaware  of  this  imperious  call  to  duty.  It 
is  certain  that  he  obeyed  it.  He  preached  at  the 
inauguration  of  Cokesbury  College  and  subse¬ 
quently,  and  at  the  opening  of  other  similar  insti¬ 
tutions  and  on  other  occasions.  It  is  more  than 
probable  that  he  addressed  Conferences  on  the 
subject,  and  that  in  his  charges  to  candidates 
for  ordination  he  impressed  upon  their  receptive 
minds  the  necessity  of  urging  education  upon 
church  members.  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  has  had  a  Board  of  Education  since  1869, 
and  there  are  58  colleges  and  universities  at 
home  and  abroad,  156  secondary  schools,  66 
theological  and  training  schools,  with  173,000 
students  in  all.  This  great  outcome  of  the  efforts 
of  the  larger  branch  of  American  Methodism  is 
not  the  result  of  a  revolution  in  the  policy  of 
education  after  the  death  of  Asbury,  but  of  an 
evolution  from  the  beginning. 


188 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


CHAPTER  XIV 

INFLUENCE  OF  METHODISM  ON  THE 

NATIONAL  LIFE 1 

ASBURY’S  thought  was  that  he  would  stay 
about  ten  years  in  America  and  then  go 
back  to  England.  He  was  an  Englishman 
and  loved  his  own  country;  but  the  web  of  cir¬ 
cumstances  of  providential  ordering  so  entangled 
him  that,  though  he  saw  missionary  after  mis¬ 
sionary  leaving  the  colonies  at  the  outbreak  of 
the  war  and  yearned  for  his  old  home  and  the 
homeland,  he  felt  that  he  must  remain.  His 
heart  was  knit  to  the  struggling  Methodist 
societies.  He  was  not  yet  ready  to  forswear 
allegiance  to  his  own  country,  nor  to  admit  that 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  justified. 
English  ministers  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  to 
which  he  looked  for  the  sacraments,  had  left 
their  flocks,  and  in  the  sifting  process  which 
followed  all  men  remaining  were  pressed  to  enter 
the  colonial  army  or  to  take  the  oath  of  adherence 
to  the  American  cause.  The  young  itinerant 
could  not  go  on  openly  with  his  work  without 
risking  arrest  and  imprisonment,  particularly  in 


1  Published  in  the  Methodist  Review  of  September-October,  1923. 

189 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


Maryland,  so  he  went  into  retirement  in  Dela¬ 
ware,  under  the  protection  of  his  friend,  Thomas 
White,  whose  house  he  always  called  his  home. 
He  corrects  the  statement  of  Lee’s  History  that 
his  seclusion  for  about  two  years  was  a  period  of 
inactivity  and  says,  “On  the  contrary,  except 
about  two  months  of  retirement  from  the  direst 
necessity,  it  was  the  most  active,  the  most  useful, 
and  the  most  afflictive  part  of  my  life.”1  He 
adds  that  he  stole  through  the  woods,  or  after 
dark,  for  house-to-house  visitation,  and  that 
during  the  period  (1778-79)  there  was  an  increase 
of  1,800  members. 

The  Methodists  suffered  from  Wesley’s  early 
declaration  against  the  cause  of  the  colonies  and 
from  their  relation  to  the  Episcopal  Church,  and 
many  of  them  were  classed  as  Tories,  a  name 
that  was  bitter  in  the  mouth  of  Americans.  Some 
of  the  preachers  were  arrested,  beaten,  and  im¬ 
prisoned  and  Asbury’s  host  and  convert,  Judge 
White,  was  in  jail  for  a  time;  but  Asbury  escaped 
this  indignity.  He  was  very  prudent  in  his  expres¬ 
sions  and  strove  to  avoid  offense.  When  and 
where  he  became  an  American  citizen  he  does 
not  state,  probably  near  the  close  of  his  hiding. 
Bishop  DuBose  says  he  was  “made  a  full  citizen 
in  Delaware,”2  1780,  and  was  free  to  go  even 

1  The  Heart  of  Asbury’s  Journal,  Ezra  Squier  Tipple,  p.  625. 

2  Francis  Asbury,  Bishop  H.  M.  DuBose,  pp.  96-99. 

190 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


into  Maryland,  bearing  a  letter  from  the  gov¬ 
ernor  vouching  for  him. 

Bishops  Asbury  and  Coke  had  at  least  two 
conferences  with  George  Washington,  the  first  at 
Mount  Vernon,  in  1785,  when  they  sought  his 
signature  to  a  petition  for  emancipation  of  the 
slaves  in  Virginia.3  The  second  was  in  New  York, 
in  1789,  the  same  year  he  became  President. 
The  conference  there,  at  the  suggestion  of  Asbury, 
named  the  two  bishops  to  bear  the  greetings 
of  Methodism  to  the  new  President.  Asbury  read 
the  short  address,  which  he  had  probably  drafted, 
conveying  to  the  distinguished  soldier  and  patriot 
the  congratulations  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  expressing  “as  full  confidence  in  your 
wisdom  and  integrity  for  the  preservation  of 
those  civil  and  religious  liberties  which  have  been 
transmitted  to  us  by  the  providence  of  God  and 
the  glorious  Revolution,  as  we  believe  ought  to 
be  reposed  in  man.”  Asbury  could  hardly  have 
used  the  two  words  “glorious  Revolution”  if  he 
had  not  fully  accepted  the  new  country  as  his  own. 

The  moral  conditions  in  the  United  States  in 
the  last  hah  of  the  century  of  the  Edwardean- 
Whitefield  revival,  1735-45,  and  the  rise  of 
Methodism  were  very  bad,  reflecting  the  low 
state  of  social,  political,  and  business  life  in 
England.  The  Wesleyan  revival  began  there  at 

3  See  Chapter  XV,  “Divisions  of  Methodism,”  p.  211 

191 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


a  time  when  religion,  as  represented  by  the  Estab¬ 
lished  Church  and  the  dissenting  bodies,  was  at 
a  low  ebb  and  the  lives  of  many  of  the  ministers 
were  far  from  regular.  The  English  court  was 
profligate,  bribery  in  elections,  political  corrup¬ 
tion,  drunkenness,  and  licentiousness  were  wide¬ 
spread,  and  little  regard  was  given  to  the  laws 
for  the  prevention  of  public  disorder  and  crime. 
In  the  colonies  the  influence  of  the  churches  had 
declined,  and  intemperance  and  social  vices,  as 
in  the  mother  country,  had  greatly  increased. 
Even  in  Puritan  New  England  social  life  had 
become  degenerate.  Ministers  drank  wine  and 
rum  freely,  particularly  at  funerals,  the  towns 
furnishing  wine  and  rum  or  cider  for  these  occa¬ 
sions.  So  notorious  had  this  practice  become 
that  to  prevent  scandal  the  General  Court  of 
Massachusetts  in  1742  forbade  the  use  of  intox¬ 
icants  at  such  services.  The  Scotch-Irish  Pres¬ 
byterians  in  Londonderry,  New  Hampshire,  held 
celebrations  in  which  drinking,  horse-racing,  and 
other  wild  features  characterized  their  fun-making. 
Licentiousness  was  widespread  in  all  the  colonies, 
and  the  history  of  the  times  speaks  of  the  vices 
and  irregularities  of  the  ministers.  French  in¬ 
fidelity  came  to  weaken  attachment  to  religion, 
and  the  demoralizing  influences  attending  the 
French-Indian  and  Revolutionary  wars  tended  to 
increase  tolerance  of  and  familiarity  with  crime. 

192 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Church  warnings  issued  near  the  end  of  the 
century  speak  of  the  spread  of  “gross  immoral¬ 
ities,”  “degeneracy  of  manners,”  “prevalence  of 
vice,”  “desecration  of  the  Sabbath,”  “profanity,” 
“neglect  of  the  sanctuary,”  “disrespect”  for  the 
teachings  of  the  Bible,  disregard  of  marriage  vows, 
low  political  ideals,  “departures  from  the  faith,” 
“impiety,”  “neglect”  of  the  church  sacraments, 
and  “every  species  of  debauchery  and  loose 
indulgence.”  In  politics  there  was  gross  abuse 
of  President  Washington,  coupled  with  praise 
of  Aaron  Burr.  Of  course  conditions  were  worse 
in  the  new  settlements  in  the  wilderness  beyond 
the  Alleghanies,  before  the  civil  law  was  fully 
established  and  firmly  administered,  and  where 
religion  had  not  been  able  promptly  to  build 
churches  and  inaugurate  regular  services.  Cleve¬ 
land  was  for  some  time,  we  are  told,  without  a 
sanctuary  and  the  people  hardly  knew  any  differ¬ 
ence  between  Sunday  and  other  days.  In  many 
cases  life  sank  to  shocking  depths.  To  the  desti¬ 
tute  sections  of  Ohio,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee 
Bishop  Asbury  made  many  toilsome  journeys, 
holding  services,  establishing  class  meetings,  dis¬ 
tributing  Bibles  and  other  literature,  and  furnish¬ 
ing  preachers,  as  rapidly  as  possible,  to  ride  long 
circuits  and  to  supply  deterrent  influences  to 
bolster  the  inability  of  the  civil  administration. 
Christian  teaching  and  the  example  of  Christian 

193 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


families  redeemed  such  elements  from  barbarity. 
They  were  poor,  they  lived  in  primitive  style, 
they  were  inured  to  privation,  but  they  were 
saved  by  the  church,  and  no  man  did  more  among 
Methodists  than  Francis  Asbury.  If  Methodists 
did  more  than  other  churches,  it  was  because 
their  system  of  itinerancy  and  circuits  of  many 
appointments  made  it  possible  for  them  to  cover 
more  ground  with  gospel  influences. 

Bishop  Asbury  was  always  a  staunch  friend  of 
law  and  order,  not  only  in  church  but  also  in 
State.  Maintenance  of  the  law  of  the  land  was 
of  no  less  concern  to  him  than  strict  observance 
of  the  law  of  God,  which  embraces  good  morals. 
As  he  went  constantly  from  city  to  city,  town 
to  town  and  settlement  to  settlement,  calling  men 
and  women  to  repentance,  he  was  an  influential 
advocate  of  loyalty  to  civil  government,  and  of 
the  highest  duty  and  privilege  of  a  patriot.  That 
man  is  the  best  patriot  who  is  the  best  citizen, 
and  the  best  citizen  is  he  who  breaks  neither 
the  laws  of  God  nor  the  laws  of  man.  What  he 
did  the  itinerants  as  a  body  also  did;  they  were 
always  friends  of  the  government  and  upheld  the 
supremacy  of  law.  Their  appeals  to  the  vicious, 
disorderly  class  were  particularly  successful.  The 
converts  ceased  to  do  evil  and  learned  to  do 
good,  becoming  valuable  citizens  where  they 
had  been  scourges  of  society.  A  well-wisher 

194 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


once  said  to  the  bishop  that  it  was  unfortunate 
that  so  many  drunken,  disorderly  and  vicious 
persons  were  attracted  by  Methodism,  intimating 
that  they  lowered  its  social  status.  But  the 
quick  reply  was  that  it  is  the  glory  of  the  gospel 
that  it  reaches  and  lifts  the  lowest  and  most 
unworthy,  for  Christ  came  expressly  to  call  sinners 
to  repentance. 

The  value  of  religion  as  a  reformatory  power 
cannot  be  overestimated.  Wickedness  and  vice 
not  only  vitiate  character  but  reduce  the  indus¬ 
trial,  productive,  and  provident  power  of  the 
individual.  America  had  more  than  usual  of 
this  undesirable  class  when  peace  was  declared, 
for  war  has  a  disastrous  effect  upon  morals. 
Asbury  rejoiced  to  find  on  his  first  visit  to  Mary¬ 
land  so  many  converts  from  among  the  wicked 
and  lawless  and  recognized  it  as  the  Lord’s  work. 
From  the  beginning  Methodism  not  only  required 
its  ministers  to  be  total  abstainers  from  intox¬ 
icating  drinks,  when  abstinence  was  the  excep¬ 
tion  and  not  the  rule,  but  also  forbade  them  to 
hold  slaves.  Its  members  were  exhorted  to  keep 
themselves  free  from  complicity  in  the  man¬ 
ufacture  and  sale  of  alcoholic  liquors,  as  well  as 
from  the  use  of  them  as  a  beverage.  Moreover, 
the  Discipline  enjoined  ministers  and  members 
alike  not  to  contract  debts  where  there  was  no 
prospect  that  they  could  be  paid,  and  lapses  from 

195 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


honesty  in  dealings  with  one  another  were  pun¬ 
ishable  by  expulsion,  if  not  made  right.  Such 
contributions  to  the  sobriety  and  sound  morals 
of  society  were  of  distinct  value  to  the  State, 
since  an  immoral  electorate  must  endanger  the 
soundness  and  perpetuity  of  the  State. 

The  lawless  class  was  particularly  large  in  the 
wilderness  into  which  settlers  began  to  stream 
at  the  end  of  the  Indian  war — Ohio,  Indiana, 
Illinois,  Tennessee,  and  Kentucky.  Asbury  found 
families  as  ignorant  and  uncivilized  almost  as  the 
Indians.  The  preachers  did  not  neglect  this 
class  and  led  the  parents  to  seek  better  things 
for  themselves  and  their  children,  winning  many 
from  a  kind  of  barbarism  to  decent  and  orderly 
life.  Without  the  influence  of  the  churches  these 
new  States  would  have  lagged  in  the  march  of 
civilization. 

Not  only  were  good  morals  and  law  and  order 
required  of  converts,  and  cultivated  among  mem¬ 
bers  by  the  efficient  system  of  supervision  of 
their  conduct  in  the  weekly  class  meeting,  but 
increase  of  intelligence  was  inculcated.  Every 
family  should  have  a  Bible  and  read  and  study 
it,  and  to  the  Bible  were  added  the  hymn  book, 
the  Discipline ,  and  much  uplifting  literature. 
The  children  must  learn  to  read  and  write,  and 
so  education  became  the  settled  policy  of  the 
church,  and  the  bishop  frequently  preached  edu- 

196 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


cational  sermons  and  he,  assisted  by  Bishop  Coke, 
founded  and  supported  Cokesbury  College  at 
Abingdon,  Maryland,  and  he  also  established  a 
number  of  academies  or  institutes  in  other  States 
and  planned  for  a  series  of  primary  schools  to 
educate  the  children,  especially  of  the  poor. 
Then,  too,  in  1786,  he  began  to  establish  Sunday 
schools  for  the  training  of  children  in  the  funda¬ 
mentals  and  in  Bible  knowledge. 

Moreover,  in  the  days  when  the  daily  and 
weekly  press  was  in  its  infancy  and  its  circula¬ 
tion  confined  largely  to  the  cities  and  towns, 
and  intercommunication  by  letter  was  slow  and 
costly,  it  is  difficult  to  measure  the  value  of  the 
periodical  visitation  by  an  intelligent,  observant 
citizen  like  Asbury  to  the  homes  of  the  rich  and 
poor  alike  in  all  parts  of  the  expanding  republic. 
In  the  conversations  held  around  the  family 
table  how  natural  it  was  that  questions  should 
be  asked  of  the  guest:  “What  news  do  you  bring 
from  Washington?”  “What  do  you  think  of 
President  Jefferson’s  plan  of  the  Louisiana  Pur¬ 
chase?”  “Will  it  cost  too  much  for  our  new 
nation  to  pay?”  “Do  we  need  any  more  terri¬ 
tory?”  “And  what  does  he  mean  by  sending 
the  Merriwether-Clark  expedition  to  the  Pacific 
Coast — more  territory?”  “Is  it  true  that  General 
Jackson  after  driving  the  British  troops  out  of 
Pensacola  has  gone  suddenly  to  New  Orleans?” 

197 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


“Is  Nicholas  Snethen  still  chaplain  of  Congress  ?” 
“Is  that  the  proper  work  of  a  preacher?”  And 
the  replies  would  be  backed  with  reasons  and 
would  be  convincing  and  illuminating.  Attacks 
on  the  President  and  other  statesmen  were  unre¬ 
strained  and  virulent  in  those  days,  and  a  visitor 
who  could  speak  with  confidence,  and  who  could 
cast  light  on  certain  policies  of  Congress  would 
be  welcome.  Much  that  would  be  helpful  could 
also  be  mentioned,  at  least  as  illustrations,  in 
sermons,  and  so  the  bishop  on  continuous  journeys 
and  the  preachers  on  extended  circuits  could 
greatly  add  to  the  stock  of  useful  information  of 
their  hosts. 

The  questions  involved  in  government  acts,  as 
President  Adams’  “midnight  judges,”  Jefferson’s 
partisan  appointments  and  demoralization  of  the 
public  service,  had  a  moral  bearing,  and  visiting 
ministers  would  be  sure  to  discern  between  the 
right  and  wrong  side,  whatever  might  be  their 
own  party  predilections.  The  church  has  its 
ideals  which  men  of  affairs  may  consider  im¬ 
practical,  still  the  ideals  of  to-day  may  guide  to 
actual  accomplishments  in  the  future. 

In  any  event,  it  was  a  great  thing  for  the 
developing  republic  to  have  a  distinguished  man, 
known  through  the  length  and  breadth  of  the 
land,  to  set  forth  daily  in  sermon  and  lecture 
and  conversation  in  every  part  of  its  domain  the 

198 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


principles  of  right  thinking  and  right  doing.  Also 
to  increase  the  number  of  the  righteous  is  a  great 
service,  for  they  make  the  most  valuable  citizens. 
Perhaps  no  man  was  better  and  more  widely 
known  than  Francis  Asbury.  People  talked  about 
him,  were  curious  to  see  and  hear  him  and  thought 
of  him  as  a  hero,  a  wonderful  man.  He  men¬ 
tions  preaching  in  Washington  where  many  came 
to  hear  “the  man  who  rambles  through  the  United 
States.”  Governors,  members  of  Congress,  gen¬ 
erals,  judges,  lawyers,  doctors,  men  of  learning, 
influence  and  wealth,  as  well  as  the  common  people, 
knew  him  and  welcomed  him  to  their  homes  and 
were  glad  to  talk  with  him  and  hear  him  preach. 
United  States  Senator  Bassett,  of  Delaware,  shy 
at  first  of  the  severe-looking  itinerant  in  black, 
became  his  fast  friend.  We  have  lived  and 
labored  so  long,  Asbury  writes,  that  we  are  “a 
spectacle  to  men,  and  though  we  say  but  little 
the  people  want  to  see  us.” 

He  neglected  no  class  of  society.  The  preach¬ 
ers  are  instructed,  he  writes,  to  hold  service  among 
the  soldiers  and  he  himself  did  so  at  every  oppor¬ 
tunity.  In  his  last  years,  amid  his  increasing 
infirmities,  he  mentions  preaching  to  the  Union 
volunteers  by  request.  He  visited  prisons  and 
talked  and  prayed  with  the  condemned.  At 
one  service  the  soldiers  were  talking  and  dancing 
about  the  door,  but  the  next  night  they  were 

199 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


quiet  and  subdued.  In  Ohio,  in  1810,  Colonel 
Putnam,  son  of  the  general  of  Revolutionary 
fame,  invited  him  to  the  house  of  Waldo,  grand- 
son  of  the  old  chief,  and  there  he  spent  a  very 
interesting  evening  with  several  Revolutionary 
officers,  who  had  moved  there  from  Massa¬ 
chusetts.  In  Georgetown,  Delaware,  he  spoke 
in  the  courthouse  to  judges  and  counselors. 
Governor  Bassett  and  wife  rode  forty  miles  to 
meet  him,  in  his  advanced  years,  at  Barratt’s 
Chapel,  and  Dr.  Edward  White,  son  of  Thomas 
White,  insisted  on  entertaining  him,  on  the  occa¬ 
sion,  saying  his  parents  thought  more  of  him 
than  of  “any  man  on  earth,”  showing  that  he 
made  fast  friends  among  the  distinguished  as 
among  the  common  people  and  had  a  wide  and 
strong  influence. 

Theodore  Roosevelt,  in  an  address  when  he 
was  President  of  the  United  States,  at  the  Amer¬ 
ican  University,  Washington,  spoke  of  Methodism 
as  “indissolubly  interwoven  with  the  history  of 
our  country.”  He  continued: 

It  entered  on  its  period  of  rapid  growth  just  about  the 
time  of  Washington’s  first  presidency.  Its  essential  democ¬ 
racy,  its  fiery  and  restless  energy  of  spirit,  and  the  wide  play 
it  gave  to  individual  initiative,  all  tended  to  make  it  pecu¬ 
liarly  congenial  to  a  hardy  and  virile  folk,  democratic  to  the 
core,  prizing  individual  independence  above  all  earthly 
possessions  and  engaged  in  the  rough  and  stern  work  of 
conquering  a  continent.  .  .  .  The  wThole  country  is  under 

200 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


a  debt  of  gratitude  to  the  Methodist  circuit  riders,  the 
Methodist  pioneer  preachers,  whose  movement  westward 
kept  pace  with  the  movement  of  the  frontier,  who  shared  all 
the  hardships  in  the  life  of  the  frontiersman,  while  at  the 
same  time  ministering  to  that  frontiersman’s  spiritual  needs 
and  seeing  that  his  pressing  material  cares  and  the  hard  and 
grinding  poverty  of  his  life  did  not  wholly  extinguish  the 
divine  fire  within  his  soul. 

President  Harding  recognizes  the  need  in  the 
world  of  “the  restoration  of  the  soul  of  religious 
devotion  and  individual  consecration’  ”  to  the 
religious  ideal  which  finds  it  “able  to  give  some¬ 
thing  that  neither  patriotism  nor  civic  virtue  can 
ever  afford.”  These  tributes  of  men  eminent  in 
the  national  life  show  that  Christianity  is  funda¬ 
mental  to  the  life  of  the  republic. 

It  is  said  by  historians  that  England  in  the 
eighteenth  century  sank  to  a  lower  condition  in 
morals  and  political  life  than  it  had  reached 
since  the  Protestant  Reformation  was  established 
and  that  the  Puritan  standards  which  Cromwell 
had  set  up  were  lowered  by  the  influence  of  the 
governments  of  Charles  II  and  the  two  Georges, 
in  reaction  against  what  was  called  the  4 ‘sour¬ 
faced  hypocrisies,”  the  antagonism  to  Christmas 
merry-making,  and  to  innocent  enjoyments  of 
the  Cromwell  epoch.  This  reaction  well-nigh 
submerged  the  Christian  religion,  so  extreme  was 
it  for  a  century  or  so.  The  inference  is  that 

201 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


government  reflects  more  or  less  popular  condi¬ 
tions.  Out  of  the  Wesleyan  revival  came  the 
Victorian  regime,  the  purest  and  best  England 
had  known,  and  it  also  was  England’s  best  de¬ 
fense  against  the  excesses  of  the  French  Revolu¬ 
tion  and  the  end-of-the-century  outbreak  of  infi¬ 
delity  in  France  and  Germany. 

It  follows  that  when  the  church  is  at  its  best, 
when  its  spiritual  life  is  purest,  and  its  example 
most  consistent  with  its  profession,  its  influence 
on  people  and  rulers  is  greatest  and  most  salutary. 
And  under  no  form  of  government  is  this  influ¬ 
ence  so  great  and  direct  as  in  a  republic  like  our 
own.  An  illustration  thrusts  itself  directly  on 
our  attention  in  the  anti-slavery  issue.  Secession 
of  the  South  followed  close  on  the  heels  of  church 
agitation  of  the  wrongfulness  of  holding  human 
beings  as  slaves,  and  the  growing  demand  for 
emancipation.  In  the  days  before  the  moral 
aspect  of  slavery  had  awakened  the  church  the 
buying  and  selling  of  men  was  simply  a  com¬ 
mercial  transaction  in  which  New  York  and  New 
England  could  participate  without  a  disturbed 
conscience.  Where  slavery  was  established  and 
was  profitable,  as  in  the  South,  it  continued  under 
a  quiescent  or  acquiescent  conscience,  because 
emancipation  seemed  to  involve  an  enormous 
loss  in  the  overturn  of  economic  conditions.  The 
division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as 

202 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


well  as  of  other  churches,  was  inevitable  when 
the  aroused  conscience  of  the  Northern  section 
was  met  by  the  determined  opposition  of  the 
Southern  section.  Statesmen  like  Henry  Clay 
shuddered  with  fear  of  what  this  division  por¬ 
tended  in  the  near  future — division  of  States  and 
terrible  civil  war. 

If  the  conscience  of  the  church  in  the  non¬ 
slave-holding  States  had  not  been  quickened  by 
evidences  of  the  evils  of  slavery  and  of  its  threat¬ 
ened  invasion  of  free  States,  and  by  the  revolting 
aspects  of  the  pursuit  of  fugitive  slaves  in  free 
territory,  the  civil  convulsion  would,  of  course, 
have  been  delayed  for  a  season,  but  only  for  a 
season.  It  was  inevitable. 

The  church,  by  common  consent,  is  the  insti¬ 
tution  whose  business  it  is  to  stir,  to  quicken, 
to  instruct,  to  buttress  the  conscience  of  the  people. 
It  is  always,  therefore,  wherever  it  is  alive,  the 
moral  leader  of  the  nation.  John  the  Baptist 
instructed  the  awakened  publicans  to  exact  no 
more  than  was  due,  and  the  anxious  soldiers  to 
do  no  violence  and  be  content  with  their  hire, 
and  wdcked  Herod  that  it  was  not  right  for  him 
to  take  his  brother’s  wife.  Christ  set  forth  ideals 
which  not  even  his  church,  after  the  lapse  of 
twenty  centuries,  has  fully  met.  Martin  Luther 
braved  Pope  and  king  in  setting  forth  the  moral 
wrongs  in  the  sale  of  indulgences  and  became  a 

203 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


more  powerful  leader  than  the  Pope  himself.  John 
Wesley’s  spiritual  ideals  carried  with  them  great 
moral  principles,  and  aroused  a  nation.  Francis 
Asbury  bore  personal  testimony  against  the  evils 
of  slavery,  the  making,  buying,  selling,  and  use 
of  intoxicants,  and  preached  the  doctrine  that 
salvation  by  faith  required  repentance  for  and 
abandonment  of  all  known  sin,  and  also  that 
sanctification,  or  perfection  in  love,  is  possible 
and  desirable  in  the  present  life,  an  experience 
which  he  was  sure  he  possessed.  He  proclaimed 
all  these  things  and  urged  them  upon  the  preach¬ 
ers  as  their  personal  privilege  to  possess  and 
their  duty  to  preach. 

It  was  not  strange,  therefore,  that  Asbury  and 
his  host,  with  other  Christian  churches,  bore 
testimony  against  slavery,  against  drunkenness 
and  that  which  creates  it;  against  war  as  a  curse, 
against  violation  of  the  sanctity  of  marriage  and 
of  the  family;  against  duelling,  the  lottery, 
gambling,  fighting,  and  other  evils;  and  most 
of  these  things  which  were  tolerated  by  public 
sentiment  in  those  times  are  under  the  ban  of 
the  law,  government  following  at  somewhat  long 
range  the  leading  of  the  church. 

There  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  value  of 
the  contribution  to  national  integrity,  perpetuity, 
and  prosperity  of  those  who  by  precept  and 
example  stand  for  justice,  right  thinking,  right 

204 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


doing,  right  living.  If  monuments  are  appro¬ 
priate  for  generals  and  admirals  and  great  fighters 
who  bring  back  peace,  why  not  much  more  appro¬ 
priate  for  leaders  like  Francis  Asbury,  who  labor 
to  make  peace  permanent  by  inculcating  the 
principles  of  justice  and  righteousness — principles 
which  never  yet  created  a  war? 


205 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


CHAPTER  XV 

DIVISIONS  OF  METHODISM 


IT  seems  inevitable  that  division  should  come 
in  the  Church  of  Christ.  From  the  apos¬ 
tolic  period  to  the  present  no  one  has  been 
able  at  any  time  to  say  the  church  is  one  and 
indivisible.  Human  nature,  even  when  sanctified, 
contains  the  seeds  of  division.  There  were  no 
greater  or  better  apostles  than  Peter  and  Paul, 
and  yet  they  could  differ  strenuously;  and  Paul 
and  Barnabas  had  a  sharp  contention  over 
Mark  and  refused  longer  to  travel  together, 
Barnabas  taking  Mark  as  his  companion,  leaving 
Silas  to  Paul.  We  have  “this  treasure  in  earthen 
vessels,”  and  cannot  expect  that  the  perfection 
of  the  treasure  will  extend  to  its  container.  Long 
before  the  division  of  the  Christian  Church  into 
the  Eastern  and  Western,  or  Greek  and  Latin 
branches,  the  Arminian,  the  Saint  Thomas,  and 
other  bodies  had  appeared;  and  before  the  great 
separation  from  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  led 
by  Luther  there  were  various  small  bodies  which 
refused  to  fellowship  the  corruptions  of  the  Church 
of  Rome.  John  Milton  spoke  of  “the  subdichot¬ 
omies  of  your  petty  schisms,”  and  these  have 

206 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


been  illustrated  in  the  history  of  Christianity. 
Francis  Asbury’s  idea  of  schism  was  that  it  is 
“not  dividing  hypocrites  from  hypocrites,  formal 
professors  from  people  of  their  own  caste,”  nor 
“nominal  Methodists  from  nominal  Methodists”; 
but  “schism  is  dividing  real  Christians  from  each 
other  and  breaking  the  unity  of  the  Spirit.”1 
This  is  reasonable,  otherwise  it  would  be  difficult 
to  exercise  discipline  in  expulsion  of  members, 
which  that  apostle  himself  exercised,  without 
incurring  the  blame  of  schism.  The  right  of 
separation  must  always  be  recognized  where  con¬ 
science  is  oppressed,  liberty  denied,  or  truth 
suppressed. 

There  was  no  permanent  division  in  American 
Methodism  in  Asbury’s  day.  The  withdrawal  of 
James  O’ Kelly  and  others  threatened  serious 
results  for  a  while,  but  in  ten  years  several  seces¬ 
sions  from  the  secession  occurred  and,  according 
to  Jesse  Lee,  “it  was  hard  to  find  two  of  one 
opinion.”  O’Kelly  protested  against  the  power 
given  to  the  episcopacy  and  virtually  disagreed 
with  himself,  for  he  declaimed  against  Asbury’s 
right  to  ordain,  though  he  had  accepted  ordina¬ 
tion  at  his  hands  for  himself  and  had  unhesitatingly 
ordained  others.  Every  concession  possible  was 
made  to  him  in  vain.  He  withdrew  and  organ¬ 
ized  his  followers  as  Republican  Methodists,  and 

1  The  Heart  of  Asbury's  Journal,  Ezra  Squier  Tipple,  p.  414. 

207 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


these  subsequently  united  with  Presbyterians  and 
Baptists  in  the  formation  of  the  Christian  Con¬ 
nection  or  Church. 

Methodism  exists  now  in  fifteen  divisions,  not 
taking  account  of  those  which  have  been  absorbed 
or  have  died  out,  nor  of  those  which  have  not 
retained  the  word  “Methodist”  in  their  title. 
Of  the  fifteen  divisions  four  white  and  three 
colored  have  come  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church;  two  white  and  two  colored  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  one  colored 
each  from  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal  and 
the  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  and  one  white 
from  the  Primitive  Methodist  Church  of  England. 
Two  other  inconsiderable  colored  bodies,  the 
African  American  Methodist  Episcopal  and  the 
Colored  Methodist  Protestant,  not  included  in 
the  above  list,  sprang,  the  former  from  several 
branches,  the  latter  from  the  Methodist  Protes¬ 
tant  Church. 

In  addition  to  these  fifteen  divisions  are  six 
Pentecostal  bodies  which  have  not  retained  the 
word  “Methodist”  in  their  titles,  but  owe  their 
existence  to  withdrawals  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church — the  first  two  and  the  sixth  in 
the  following  list — the  third  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  the  fourth  and 
fifth  from  the  Free  Methodist  Church.  1.  The 
Church  of  the  Nazarene,  with  about  47,000 

208 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


members.  2.  The  International  Apostolic  Holiness 
Church,  with  more  than  12,000  members.  3.  The 
Pentecostal  Holiness  Church,  with  over  5,000 
members.  4.  The  Holiness  Church,  with  less 
than  a  thousand  members.  5.  The  Pentecost 
Bands  of  the  World,  with  218  members.  6.  The 
Pillar  of  Fire,  whose  1,200  members  wear  blue 
uniforms.  These  withdrawals  were  due  to  the 
feeling  that  not  sufficient  emphasis  was  given 
to  Wesley’s  doctrine  of  entire  sanctification  in 
the  churches  from  which  they  took  place.  This 
doctrine  is  made  prominent  in  these  Holiness 
bodies,  which  accept  the  Methodist  system  in 
general,  the  General  Rules  and  Methodist  usages, 
emphasizing  nonconformity  to  the  world.  They 
are  premillenarian,  and  three  teach  faith  healing. 
All  these  bodies  accept  the  Methodist  principle 
of  super  in  tendency. 

There  are  three  or  four  other  bodies  which 
are  Methodistic  in  doctrine,  discipline,  and  usage, 
and  are  recognized  as  eligible  to  a  place  in  the 
Ecumenical  Methodist  Conference: 

1.  The  United  Brethren  in  Christ  (two  bodies), 
the  founder  of  which  was  the  bosom  friend  of 
Bishop  Asbury,  Philip  William  Otterbein,  of  the 
Reformed  German  Church.  These  bodies  accept 
Methodist  doctrines  and  discipline,  and  are  epis¬ 
copal.  The  organization  took  place  in  1800.  If 
Bishop  Asbury  and  other  Methodists  had  been 

209 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


willing  to  recognize  German-speaking  churches, 
there  probably  would  have  been  a  union  of  the 
two.  The  division  in  the  United  Brethren  itself 
was  due  chiefly  to  the  question  of  oath-bound 
secret  societies.  The  smaller  body  still  refuses 
to  accept  as  members  persons  connected  with 
such  societies.  The  two  bodies  have  a  total  of 
nearly  380,000  members. 

2.  The  Evangelical  Association  was  the  out¬ 
come  of  the  extension  of  the  Methodist  evan¬ 
gelistic  movement  to  German-speaking  people  in 
Pennsylvania  and  Maryland.  Jacob  Albright, 
born  in  Pennsylvania  in  1759,  was  a  Lutheran 
who  came  under  the  influence  of  an  evangelistic 
minister  of  the  Reformed  German  Church,  was 
converted  and  became  a  Methodist.  Methodist 
leaders,  believing  that  the  German  language 
would  not  long  survive  in  the  United  States, 
refused  for  a  time  to  organize  churches  for  its 
use.  Accordingly  Albright,  who  became  a  preacher 
in  1796,  began  to  preach  among  his  own  people 
and  to  organize  the  converts  into  churches,  the 
outcome  of  which,  of  necessity,  was  a  new  denom¬ 
ination  in  1803,  the  Evangelical  Association,  of 
which  he  became  the  first  bishop.  A  denomina¬ 
tional  division  occurred  in  1889  creating  the 
United  Evangelical  Church,  but  the  two  bodies 
were  reunited  in  1922  as  the  Evangelical 
Church,  with  about  259,000  members,  including 

210 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


those  in  Germany,  Switzerland,  Russia,  China, 
and  Japan. 

The  race  question,  the  source  of  most  of  the 
division  of  Methodism,  early  appeared  as  a 
troublesome  problem.  Asbury  as  an  Englishman 
had  a  great  interest  in  the  Negroes.  He  had 
probably  never  seen  any  in  England  and  was 
curious  about  them.  He  sympathized  with  the 
slaves  and  frequently  speaks  in  his  Journal  of 
the  “poor  Africans,”  whose  “sable  faces”  appeared 
so  pathetic  to  him  in  his  congregations  in  the 
South.  He  and  Doctor  Coke  called  on  George 
Washington  at  Mount  Vernon  and  asked  him  to 
sign  a  petition  for  emancipation  of  the  slaves  in 
Virginia.  The  first  President  thought  it  not 
expedient  to  do  this,  but  expressed  sympathy 
with  their  attitude,  and  provided  in  his  will  for 
the  emancipation  of  his  own  slaves.  Rules  against 
slavery,  in  States  permitting  them  to  be  freed, 
appeared  in  the  Minutes  of  the  Conferences  as 
early  as  1780,  applying  both  to  itinerants  and 
local  preachers,  also  to  members  who  bought  and 
sold  slaves.  The  General  Conference  of  1784 
adopted  provisions  “to  extirpate  the  abomination 
of  slavery”  which,  of  course,  could  not  be  carried 
out,  nor  could  emancipation  be  discussed,  even, 
in  some  of  the  States. 

Methodism  had  its  message  of  salvation  to 
Negroes,  slave  and  free,  and  probably  they  were 

211 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


admitted  to  membership  in  the  societies  almost 
from  the  beginning.  In  1786  and  thereafter  they 
were  reported  in  a  separate  column.  In  that  year 
there  were  about  2,000  of  them,  most  of  whom 
were  in  Maryland  and  Virginia,  with  thirty- 
three  in  New  York  and  on  Long  Island.  They 
grew  rapidly  in  number,  constituting  in  1796  one 
fifth  of  the  total  membership  of  66,608. 

At  the  beginning  there  were  “no  Negro  pews, 
nor  back  seats,  nor  gallery  especially  provided 
for  the  dark-skinned  members.”  Captain  Webb 
and  his  associates,  seeking  for  salvation  of  souls, 
took  no  heed  of  the  complexion  of  their  hearers.2 
Bishop  Hood  says  that  as  the  Methodists  grew  in 
number  “Negro  haters”  crept  in.  Not  “haters,” 
but  people  with  race  prejudice,  which  often  be¬ 
came  strong.  Some  extremists  even  doubted 
whether  the  Negro  had  a  soul,  insisting  that  he 
sprang  from  gorillas  or  orang-outangs.  But  it 
must  be  admitted  that  in  the  slave  States  the 
Negro  had  a  place  in  the  white  churches,  even 
though  it  might  be  in  galleries,  or  back  of  rail¬ 
ings  separating  them  from  the  whites,  and  was 
by  them  saved  from  barbarism.  Bishop  Hood, 
who  was  a  leader  of  large  ability,  naturally  re¬ 
sents  such  distinctions,  but  were  they  not  natural 
and  inevitable?  They  obtained  among  all  denom- 

2  One  Hundred  Years  of  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion  Church, 
Bishop  J.  W.  Hood,  p.  1. 


212 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


inations.  The  question  whether  it  would  have 
been  better  if  Negro  members  had  been  asso¬ 
ciated  on  equal  social  terms  with  white  members, 
Bishop  Hood  does  not  definitely  discuss,  but  he 
does  claim  that  Negroes  in  Negro  churches  have 
made  much  greater  advances  than  Negroes  in 
white  churches.  If  that  is  so,  is  the  question 
not  one  of  expediency  and  not  of  principle,  since 
the  Negro  in  his  own  denominations  has  all  the 
rights  that  the  white  man  possesses  in  white 
churches?  Race  prejudice,  at  all  events,  is  deeply 
rooted  and  difficult  to  overcome. 

John  Wesley  was  strongly  opposed  both  to 
the  slave  traffic  and  to  slavery.  England  freed 
herself  of  complicity  with  the  former  in  1806 
and  then  abolished  slavery  in  her  colonies  a  gen¬ 
eration  later.  Slavery  existed  in  the  original 
American  colonies,  but  gradually  ceased  in  the 
North,  because  it  was  unprofitable,3  and  became 
a  settled  institution  in  the  South,  where  climate 
and  the  production  of  sugar,  rice,  and  cotton 
seemed  to  make  it  necessary.4  Strange  to  say, 
George  Whitefield  used  his  influence  in  England 
to  have  slavery  introduced  in  Georgia,  where 
he  had  been  on  a  visit,  and  it  wTas  done  in  1751, 
contrary  to  the  wish  of  the  colonists.  The  great 
evangelist  died  a  slave  holder  himself,  leaving 

&  History  of  the  United  States,  John  Clark  Ridpath,  p.  487. 

4  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  Gross  Alexander,  p.  4. 

213 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


seventy-five  slaves  in  that  colony  on  the  Orphan 
House  Plantation. 

.The  race  question  not  only  resulted  in  the 
separation  of  colored  members  from  the  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church  (see  pages  223-4)  but  also 
gave  rise  to  divisions  among  the  white  bodies 
themselves.  Indeed,  it  was  a  fruitful  source  of 
trouble  and  division  in  nearly  all  the  denomina¬ 
tions.  The  Mennonite  body,  taking  advanced 
position  against  slavery  as  early  as  1688,  have 
been  free  from  any  complicity  with  the  evil.  It 
declared  that  those  who  steal  or  rob  men  and 
those  who  buy  and  sell  them  are  alike  culpable. 
A  century  later  the  Quakers,  who  had  been  some¬ 
what  tolerant,  bore  strong  testimony  against 
the  institution  and  so  exercised  discipline  that 
slaveholding  Friends  disappeared  before  the  Rev¬ 
olution.  The  German  body  of  Dunkards  treated 
colored  members  exactly  the  same  as  white, 
admitting  them  to  communion,  and  bestowing 
upon  them  the  holy  kiss.  In  Methodism  most 
of  the  early  itinerants  came  from  the  South  where 
slavery  existed.  Freeborn  Garrettson  was  one 
of  these,  and  he  said  it  never  occurred  to  him 
that  the  holding  of  slaves  was  morally  wrong. 
He  had  never  read  anything  on  the  subject  for 
or  against  until  he  became  a  preacher.  In  the 
discussions  in  Conference  and  in  conversation 
Francis  Asbury  and  Thomas  Coke  spoke  against 

214 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


slaveholding  and  the  buying  and  selling  of  human 
beings,  as  contrary  to  God’s  law  and  the  rights 
and  dignity  of  mankind.  Not  a  few  preachers 
and  lay  members  were  moved  by  these  consid¬ 
erations  to  liberate  their  slaves.  The  rules  which 
had  been  proposed  in  the  Annual  Conferences, 
from  1780  onward,  to  free  the  societies  from 
complicity  with  the  evil,  could  not,  of  course, 
be  executed  in  those  States  which  by  law  pro¬ 
hibited  discussion  of  the  subject;  and  seeing  that 
this  was  a  stubborn  fact,  the  rule  was  relaxed 
in  1800,  for  slaveholders  had  souls,  as  well  as 
slaves,  and  Methodism  had  a  mission  to  them, 
Asbury  himself  making  a  motion  that  one  thousand 
copies  of  the  Discipline  be  printed  with  the  par¬ 
agraph  on  slaves  omitted  for  use  in  South  Caro¬ 
lina. 

In  the  free  States  a  moral  standard  against 
slavery  was  raised  which  attracted  more  and 
more  support  as  discussion  proceeded  and  abo¬ 
lition  became  a  burning  question  in  the  first  half 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  It  made  friends 
steadily  in  New  England  and  in  northern  New 
York,  also  in  Ohio  and  elsewhere;  but  there  was 
a  strong  sentiment  in  the  North  against  agita¬ 
tion,  on  the  ground  that  emancipation,  however 
desirable,  could  not  be  forced  on  sovereign  States 
without  violating  the  federal  Constitution  and 
probably  disrupting  the  Union.  And  so  the 

21 5 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


discussion  went  on  in  the  press,  on  the  forum, 
and  in  the  churches  and  anti-slavery  societies 
were  organized.  The  General  Conference  of  1840 
was  forced  to  give  much  attention  to  the  subject, 
stating  and  defending  its  conservative  position  as 
clearly  and  strongly  as  possible,  particularly  to 
the  mother  church  in  England.  In  the  next  four 
years  the  agitation  grew,  and  the  General  Con¬ 
ference  of  1844  was  brought  face  to  face  with  a 
situation  it  could  not  evade.  Bishop  Andrew,  of 
Georgia,  had  indirectly  come  into  the  possession 
of  slaves,  his  wife  having  brought  this  kind  of 
property  to  her  husband.  A  majority  of  the 
delegates  insisted  that  he  ought  to  get  rid  of  his 
slaves,  or  suspend  his  episcopal  functions  mean¬ 
while.  Action  to  this  effect  was  taken  by  a  vote 
of  111  to  69.  The  Southern  delegates  presented 
a  protest,  and  it  being  evident  that  division  of 
the  church  would  take  place,  a  plan  of  separation 
was  adopted,  and  under  it  455,217  members 
went  out  to  join  the  Southern  body  and  644,229 
remained  with  the  Northern.  One  of  the  speakers 
in  the  Conference  predicted  that  political  division 
would  follow  ecclesiastical  division,  which  was 
to  be  verified  sixteen  years  later. 

Both  ecclesiastical  and  political  division  were 
inevitable.  Lines  of  separation  in  other  churches 
followed  those  dividing  the  free  from  the  slave 
States — Presbyterian,  Protestant  Episcopal,  Lu- 

216 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


theran,  Methodist  Protestant — while  other  bodies 
like  the  Roman  Catholic,  the  Baptist,  etc.,  were 
cut  off  from  intercommunication  in  the  two  sec¬ 
tions.  No  other  single  cause  has  been  productive 
of  more  denominational  separations.  The  bitter¬ 
ness  engendered  by  the  Civil  War  added  greatly 
to  the  difficulty  of  overcoming  the  ecclesiastical 
dissensions  and  differences.  But  reunions  have 
taken  place  between  the  severed  dioceses  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal,  and  the  factions  of  the 
Methodist  Protestant,  Lutheran,  Baptist,  Chris¬ 
tian,  and  other  bodies.  Fraternity  was  established 
in  1876  between  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and 
the  sentiment  for  reunion  has  risen  steadily  in 
both  bodies. 

In  order  of  time  as  the  result  of  divisions  among 
white  Methodists,  leaving  out  of  consideration 
those  branches  which  have  died  out  or  been 
merged,  the  following  constitute  the  present 
list  of  churches,  using  the  official  titles: 

1.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  This 
body,  direct  in  descent  from  the  organization  at 
Baltimore  in  1784,  notwithstanding  all  its  losses 
by  withdrawal,  expulsion,  secession,  separation, 
and  division,  continues  to  occupy  the  first  place 
as  to  number  of  Annual  Conferences,  ministers, 
churches  and  members,  of  Sunday  schools,  officers 
and  teachers,  and  scholars;  as  to  value  of  denom- 

217 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


inational  property  of  all  kinds,  and  as  to  annual 
budgets  of  running  expenses  of  its  churches  and 
multiplied  institutions,  and  the  income  of  its 
varied  benevolences,  including  its  home  and  for¬ 
eign  missions. 

2.  The  Methodist  Protestant  Church.  This 
body  was  the  outcome  of  an  agitation  for  the 
introduction  of  lay  representation  in  the  Annual 
and  the  General  Conferences,  for  the  reduction 
of  the  powers  of  bishops  and  for  elective  pre¬ 
siding  elders.  Objection  had  been  made  almost 
from  the  first  to  the  absolute  stationing  power 
and  the  appointment  of  presiding  elders  by  the 
bishop,  and  both  of  these  questions  had  been 
decided  against  the  proposed  innovations.  Lay 
representation  was  a  new  proposition.  In  the 
advocacy  of  these  reforms,  in  which  feeling  ran 
high,  some  of  the  ministers  were  suspended  and 
expelled  and  so  were  many  laymen.  Some 
voluntarily  withdrew,  seeing  no  probability  that 
the  reforms  asked  for  would  be  granted,  and  the 
new  denomination  was  organized  in  Pittsburgh 
in  18S0.  Among  the  leaders  in  the  movement 
were  Asa  Shinn,  Nicholas  Snethen,  a  traveling 
companion  of  Asbury,  and  Alexander  McCaine. 
It  began  its  existence  with  eighty-three  ministers 
and  about  five  thousand  members,  and  in  the 
next  four  years  added  heavily  to  its  numbers. 
In  1858  a  division  occurred  on  the  slavery  ques- 

218 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


tion,  the  new  body  calling  itself  The  Methodist 
Church.  A  dozen  years  after  the  Civil  War  and 
the  abolition  of  slavery  the  two  bodies  were 
reunited,  with  a  total  of  116,542  members. 

The  Methodist  Protestant  Church  has  no 
bishops  nor  presiding  elders  and  the  president 
of  an  Annual  Conference  continues  to  serve  as 
pastor.  Appointments  of  preachers  are  made  by 
a  committee,  the  Conference  approving.  There 
is  lay  representation  in  the  Annual  and  also  in 
the  General  Conference.  The  president  of  the 
latter  serves  as  a  superintendent  for  four  years. 
The  denomination  has  two  publishing  houses, 
one  in  Baltimore  and  one  in  Pittsburgh,  with  two 
weekly  organs.  It  has  several  colleges  and  con¬ 
ducts  both  home  and  foreign  missions. 

3.  The  Wesleyan  Methodist  Connection  of 
America.  There  were  two  questions  involved  in 
the  organization  of  this  body  in  1843 — opposition 
to  slavery  and  to  episcopacy.  Orange  Scott,  a 
strong  preacher  and  a  powerful  debater,  was 
the  leader  of  the  movement,  which  began  with 
about  six  thousand  members,  but  never  obtained 
a  large  following.  It  has  no  bishops,  but  general 
supervision  is  given  by  the  president  of  its  quad¬ 
rennial  General  Conference.  It  has  a  publishing 
house  in  Syracuse  and  a  weekly  organ.  It  is 
opposed  to  secret  oath-bound  societies,  and  ob¬ 
serves  plainness  of  dress  and  holds  the  Wesleyan 

219 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


doctrine  of  sanctification.  There  is  no  time 
limit  to  the  itinerancy. 

4.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 
On  the  basis  of  the  provisional  Plan  of  Separation, 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844, 
delegates  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the 
South,  sixteen  in  number,  organized  in  1845  the 
above-named  body,  and  arranged  that  its  first 
General  Conference  should  be  held  in  May,  1846. 
Two  bishops,  Soule  and  Andrew,  adhered  to  the 
new  organization,  and  in  1846  two  additional 
bishops  were  elected.  Arrangements  were  also 
made  for  a  publishing  house.  The  obligation  of 
giving  the  gospel  to  the  slave  population  was 
accepted  as  of  binding  force.  The  General  Con¬ 
ference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in 
1848,  declared  the  Plan  of  Separation  null  and 
void  and  declined  to  receive  the  overture  for 
fraternal  relations  which  the  Southern  General 
Conference  tendered  by  its  appointed  representa¬ 
tive,  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce. 

Differences  between  the  two  sections  were 
increased  by  the  Civil  War  and  were  aggravated 
by  the  entry  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
into  the  South,  after  the  war,  to  organize  Annual 
Conferences,  both  among  the  white  and  colored 
people,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
coming  into  Northern  territory  in  the  same  way. 
Happily,  the  controversial  period  is  at  an  end, 

220 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


and  negotiations  for  reunion  are  as  cordially 
approved  in  the  South  as  in  the  North,  the  crucial 
question  being  as  to  the  plan. 

The  Southern  body,  with  its  high-grade  uni¬ 
versities  and  colleges,  its  home  and  foreign  mis¬ 
sion  work  and  its  other  organized  benevolences, 
has  become  a  great  and  influential  denomination 
in  the  South,  second  only  in  numbers  among 
white  bodies  to  the  Southern  Baptist  Convention. 
In  doctrine  it  differs  not  at  all  from  the  Northern 
body;  in  polity,  it  allows  its  bishops  a  modified 
veto  power  over  General  Conference  legislation 
which  they  may  regard  as  unconstitutional.  It 
has  no  probationary  system  for  members  and 
admits  lay  representatives  both  to  the  General 
and  to  the  Annual  Conference.  Women,  as  in 
the  Northern  Church,  have  equal  rights  with 
men  in  General  Conference,  Annual  Conference, 
and  on  all  the  general  boards.  Its  foreign  mis¬ 
sions  are  in  Mexico,  Cuba,  South  America,  Africa, 
China,  Korea,  and  Japan. 

5.  The  Primitive  Methodist  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America.  This  body  was  not 
due  to  division  in  America,  but  in  England.  Early 
in  the  nineteenth  century  camp  meetings  were 
introduced  in  England,  some  of  the  Wesley ans 
cooperating.  Conversions  took  place  and  the 
converts  organized  in  churches,  which  sought 
admission  to  the  Wesleyan  body.  This  was 

221 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


refused  and  they  were  organized  in  a  separate 
branch.  Primitive  Methodists  who  came  to  the 
United  States  formed  congregations  here.  They 
differ  from  other  Methodist  bodies  chiefly  in 
having  no  bishops,  no  presiding  elders,  and  no 
time  limit.  They  have  Annual  and  Quarterly 
Conferences  and  a  quadrennial  General  Confer¬ 
ence.  There  are  three  Annual  Conferences,  and 
less  than  nine  thousand  members. 

6.  The  Congregational  Methodist  Church.  A 
withdrawal  of  ministers  and  members  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  Georgia, 
growing  out  of  objection  to  features  of  the  epis¬ 
copacy  and  itinerancy,  led  to  the  organization 
of  this  body  in  1852.  It  has  Annual  Conferences 
and  a  General  Conference  and  is  congregational  in 
polity,  being  like  other  Methodist  bodies  in  doc¬ 
trine  and  usage.  It  suffered  heavy  losses  in  the 
decade  ending  in  1916,  its  churches  decreasing 
from  325  to  197. 

7.  The  Free  Methodist  Church  of  North 
America.  An  agitation  within  the  bounds  of  the 
Genesee  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  over  the  alleged  departure  of  the  latter 
from  its  primitive  standard  of  faith,  experience, 
and  practice,  and  its  use  of  oppressive  ecclesias¬ 
tical  machinery,  led  to  withdrawals  and  expul¬ 
sions  and  a  separate  organization  in  1860.  The 
episcopal  and  most  of  the  other  features  of  the 

222 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


parent  body  are  retained.  There  are  forty  or  more 
Annual  Conferences  in  the  United  States  and 
Canada,  foreign  missions  in  Africa,  India,  China, 
Japan,  and  the  West  Indies.  A  publishing  house, 
which  issues  a  weekly  organ,  is  established  in 
Chicago. 

8.  The  New  Congregational  Methodist  Church. 
This  is  the  result  of  withdrawals  from  the  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  Georgia,  in  1881, 
due  to  dissatisfaction  with  some  particulars  of 
administration.  It  stands  for  the  parity  of  the 
ministry,  the  rights  of  the  local  church,  opposes 
assessments,  and  provides  for  the  ceremony  of 
feet-washing  for  those  who  wish  it.  It  is  congre¬ 
gational  in  polity.  In  doctrine  it  is  in  accord 
with  other  Methodist  bodies.  It  has  but  a  small 
following. 

The  Colored  branches,  seven  in  number,  are 
as  follows: 

9.  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
Everywhere  there  was  more  or  less  prejudice 
against  the  Negroes.  In  New  York  they  were 
expected  to  wait  until  the  whites  had  communed 
before  coming  to  the  Lord’s  table.  In  Philadel¬ 
phia  as  early  as  1787  they  began  to  take  measures 
for  a  separate  meeting  place.  Asbury  consecrated 
a  new  church  for  them  known  as  Bethel  and  later 
ordained  Richard  Allen,  an  ex-slave  from  Vir¬ 
ginia,  who  had  furnished  most  of  the  money  for 

223 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


tlie  edifice  and  who  became  its  pastor  and  sub¬ 
sequently  the  first  bishop  of  the  church.  This 
is  now  the  largest  body  of  Colored  Methodists, 
wTith  bishops,  colleges,  missions  at  home  and  in 
Africa  and  the  West  Indies,  and  with  a  pub¬ 
lishing  house,  in  Philadelphia,  a  weekly  church 
press  and  a  Review. 

10.  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion  Church. 
The  second  largest  colored  body  had  its  begin¬ 
ning  in  New  York  in  1796.  Colored  members 
who  could  not  comfortably  worship  with  their 
white  brethren  provided  themselves  with  a  sep¬ 
arate  church,  which  they  named  Zion.  By  agree¬ 
ment  white  pastors  conducted  their  services  for 
twenty  years,  and  then  they  secured  a  colored 
ministry,  and  completed  their  separate  organiza¬ 
tion  with  bishops  of  their  own  color.  It  has  a 
Conference  and  a  bishop  in  Africa  and  is  equipped 
in  the  United  States  with  collegiate  and  theolog¬ 
ical  schools,  and  church  press. 

11.  The  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
This  body,  which  has  its  chief  strength  in  the 
South,  was  organized  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  in  1870,  of  its  colored  ministers 
and  members.  In  1845  when  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  was  organized,  it  had 
124,000  colored  members,  who  had  increased  to 
207,766  in  1860.  After  the  Civil  War  these 
members  began  to  leave  that  body,  uniting  with 

224 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  with  the  two 
leading  African  churches.  This  church,  with  its 
Board  of  Bishops,  its  publishing  house,  and  period¬ 
icals,  its  educational  institutions  and  its  mission¬ 
ary  operations,  has  grown  rapidly  in  late  years. 

12.  The  Union  American  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  This  body  has  a  few  Annual  Confer¬ 
ences  in  the  North,  bishops,  a  General  Confer¬ 
ence  and  about  twenty  thousand  members.  It 
dates  its  beginning  from  1813,  with  the  ordination 
of  Peter  Spencer,  a  colored  man  in  Wilmington, 
Delaware,  the  actual  organization  coming  some 
years  later.  It  is  an  offshoot  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church. 

13.  The  African  Union  Methodist  Protestant 
Church.  A  nonepiscopal  body,  in  general  sym¬ 
pathy  and  agreement  with  the  Methodist  Protes¬ 
tant  Church,  from  which  it  came  principally. 
Each  Annual  Conference  elects  its  own  president 
for  a  term  of  four  years.  It  is  a  small  organiza¬ 
tion  of  about  twenty-five  thousand  members. 

14.  The  Reformed  Zion  Union  Apostolic  Church. 
A  small  body  of  Colored  Methodists  dating  from 
1869,  in  Virginia,  drawn  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South.  It  is  episcopal,  with 
Annual  Conferences  and  a  General  Conference 
which  meets  annually.  It  has  less  than  ten 
thousand  members  who  are  found  in  Virginia 
and  North  Carolina. 


225 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


15.  The  Reformed  Methodist  Union  Episcopal 
Church.  A  small  body  of  less  than  two  thousand, 
with  a  bishop  who  was  consecrated  by  a  bishop 
of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  resulting  in  a 
secession  from  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  existing  in  South  Carolina  and  Georgia. 

For  statistics  of  all  these  bodies  see  appendix. 


226 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


CHAPTER  XVI 

ASBURY’S  LAST  YEAR 

IT  is  not  given  to  all  men  to  fill  out  life  to 
the  end  with  work.  Even  those  who  labor 
for  a  cause  of  preeminent  importance,  like 
Francis  Asbury,  are  not  always  permitted  either 
to  serve  to  the  last,  or  to  see  the  results  of 
their  activity.  It  might  almost  seem  that  a 
special  Providence  granted  him  his  oft-expressed 
desire  to  cease  to  live  when  he  was  forced 
to  cease  to  work.  His  life  was  lengthened  far 
beyond  his  expectation;  he  faced  death,  as  he 
supposed,  several  times  before  it  finally  claimed 
him.  Like  Paul,  he  could  exclaim  when  burdens 
and  trials,  pains  and  infirmities  crushed  his  bodily 
powers,  “For  me  to  live  is  Christ,  and  to  die  is 
gain.”  It  seemed  needful  to  the  brethren  that  he 
should  remain  and  continue  the  struggle,  with 
courage  ever  renewed  to  equal  the  task  of  duty, 
and  so  years  were  added,  until  God  said,  “It 
is  enough;  come  up  higher.” 

He  dreaded  inaction  more  than  death.  And  to 
long  periods  of  inaction  fortunately  he  was  not 
condemned.  His  longest  term  of  interrupted 
travel — about  two  years — was  in  the  Revolution- 

227 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


ary  War  period;  but  there  was  much  he  could 
do  and  did  do  in  Delaware,  in  a  quiet  way,  and 
he  considered  this  work  of  pastoral  visitation, 
and  of  preaching  and  planning,  not  inferior  to 
any  he  did  before  or  after  that  time.  As  his 
episcopal  supervision  extended  over  the  whole 
settled  portions  of  the  country,  he  so  planned, 
particularly  in  his  later  years,  that  his  winters 
were  spent  in  the  South,  where  the  weather  was 
much  milder,  and  Charleston,  South  Carolina, 
was  his  headquarters,  whence  he  made  necessary 
trips  to  hold  Southern  Conferences,  and  where 
he  attended  to  accumulated  correspondence,  prep¬ 
aration  of  publications  for  the  printer,  and  the 
like.  In  spring,  summer  and  fall  he  took  long 
journeys  across  the  Alleghanies  to  the  develop¬ 
ing  West,  eastward  to  New  England  and  north¬ 
ward  to  western  New  Y7ork  and  Canada. 

His  last  trip  to  these  Eastern  and  Western  sec¬ 
tions  was  taken  in  1815.  At  the  beginning  of 
the  year  he  was  in  North  Carolina  working  his 
way  to  Virginia.  His  Journal  states  that  he  was 
scarcely  an  hour  “free  from  pain,”  and  that  all 
he  did  was  “in  the  strength  of  Jesus.”  February 
first  he  traveled  twenty-two  miles  and  “was 
nearly  done.”  The  weather  was  excessively  cold 
and  keenly  felt  by  “an  old  man  of  seventy,  deeply 
wounded  in  the  limbs,  breast,  and  lungs.”  Four 
days  later  he  preached  and  was  “occupied  in 

228 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


reading,  writing,  and  patching  and  propping  up 
the  old  clay  house.”  A  doctor  drew  from  his 
weakened  body  “two  ounces  of  blood” — such  was 
medical  judgment  of  the  way  to  bring  back 
strength.  Two  days  later  he  was  facing  a  driving 
snowstorm  on  his  northward  journey.  He  met  the 
Conference  at  Lynchburg,  Virginia,  preached  and 
ordained  and  was  delighted  with  the  news  that 
a  treaty  of  peace  had  been  made  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  and  great  would 
have  been  his  joy  if  he  had  known  that  it  was 
to  be  unbroken  for  more  than  a  century. 

In  March  he  was  in  Maryland.  On  his  way 
he  saw  the  ruins  of  the  Capitol  and  the  Pres¬ 
ident’s  house,  which  the  late  enemy  had  burned, 
and  of  the  Navy  Yard,  which  Americans  had 
destroyed,  and  exclaims  sadly,  “Oh,  war,  war!” 
He  held  the  Conference  in  Baltimore  and  sta¬ 
tioned  eighty -five  preachers — “no  small  work.” 
Then  to  Perry  Hall  (north  of  the  city),  and  its 
abounding  comforts.  Everybody,  he  writes,  is 
solicitous  for  the  welfare  of  the  “old  man,”  “a 
sinner  saved  by  grace.”  The  middle  of  April 
he  was  in  Delaware,  with  old  friends  anxious  to 
see  and  talk  with  him,  but  even  their  kindness 
was  a  burden  in  his  weakened  condition.  He 
preached  as  he  could  and  traveled  when  the 
weather  was  not  too  severe  and  was  laid  up  a 
week  in  Philadelphia,  after  which  he  preached 

229 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


in  the  beautiful  new  chapel  on  Tenth  Street. 
Then  on  to  Trenton  and  New  York,  where  he 
arrived  the  middle  of  May;  thence  to  Albany  to 
hold  Conference  and  preach  by  request  a  funeral 
sermon  on  Bishop  Coke,  “a  gentleman,  a  scholar 
and  a  bishop  to  us,  and  as  a  minister  of  Christ, 
in  zeal,  in  labors  and  in  services,  the  greatest  man 
in  the  last  century.”  He  was  concerned  about 
stationing  the  ministers.  “Seventy  married,”  he 
exclaims,  “out  of  ninety -five,”  with  sick  wives 
and  children — “how  shall  we  meet  the  claims  of 
the  Conference?”  and  adds:  “We  are  deficient  in 
dollars  and  discipline.”  The  ruling  passion  strong 
in  weakness! 

The  New  England  Conference  was  held  in 
Boston,  and  the  bishop  had  to  call  in  help  in  the 
presidency.  In  June,  on  his  way  back  to  New 
York,  he  came  to  Ashgrove,  where  Philip  Embury 
had  settled  and  died,  and  preached  there  in  the 
chapel.  In  New  York  at  the  Fourth  Street  Chapel 
he  spoke  on  Zephaniah  1.  12,  and  remarks:  “Time 
was  when  I  could  have  preached  on  this  text.” 
No  doubt;  and  how  he  would  have  roused  “the 
men  that  are  settled  on  their  lees”!  He  preached 
also  to  the  Africans,  in  the  church  they  had 
built  in  New  York,  in  love  and  tenderness,  no 
doubt,  for,  as  already  stated,  he  was  greatly  in¬ 
terested  in  the  Negro. 

In  Little  York,  Pennsylvania,  he  was  engaged 

230 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


with  “Son”  Francis  Hollingsworth,  in  revising 
his  Journal  down  to  1807.  He  also  “tried  to 
preach  but  wanted  strength.”  Speaking  of  his 
Journal ,  he  remarks  modestly  it  will  be  of  use 
as  a  history  of  early  Methodism,  and  adds:  “I 
have  buried  in  shades  all  that  will  be  proper  to 
forget,  in  which  I  am  personally  concerned.” 
But  even  the  buried  things  speak,  as  from  the 
grave,  of  the  nobility  of  his  character.  July  15, 
being  on  his  travels  again,  he  enters  in  his  Journal 
the  result  of  his  meditations  on  Colossians  1. 
26,  28.  He  says  that  Paul,  in  apostolic  power 
and  authority,  wrote  to  a  church  in  which  he 
had  not  yet  preached,  to  teach  and  exhort.  Why, 
then,  not  preach,  as  well  as  write,  to  churches 
in  all  parts? 

“Oh,”  say  the  Baptists,  “this  is  my  church.”  “Oh,  this 
is  my  congregation,”  says  the  stationed  minister.  And 
must  no  other  minister  preach  to  these  souls?  “No,”  says 
sectarian  prejudice;  “No,”  says  bigoted  pride;  “No,”  says 
the  wool-shepherd,  who  is  afraid  his  flock  may  become  too 
wise  for  him. 

This  indicates  that  the  bishop’s  tale  of  years 
had  not  narrowed,  but  broadened  his  idea  of 
Christian  fellowship.  “Preach,”  he  concludes,  “as 
if  you  had  seen  heaven  and  its  celestial  inhab¬ 
itants,  and  had  hovered  over  the  bottomless  pit 
and  beheld  the  tortures  and  heard  the  groans  of 

231 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


the  damned.”  This  was  the  way  the  fathers 
roused  and  reached  the  careless  and  hardened. 

At  the  end  of  July  he  was  in  western  Pennsyl¬ 
vania  on  his  way  to  the  West,  finding  the  roads 
there  the  roughest  on  the  continent.”  He  had 
traveled  in  less  than  three  weeks  over  three 
hundred  miles.  Reaching  Zanesville,  Ohio,  August 
6,  he  preached  at  a  camp  meeting  on  “Knowing, 
therefore,  the  terror  of  the  Lord,  we  persuade 
men.”  He  rejoiced  over  news  of  twenty-three 
converts  at  Zanesville,  forty  at  Kenhawa,  twenty- 
five  at  Marietta  and  twenty-four  at  Fairfield — 
all  camp  meetings.  This  kind  of  report  always 
thrilled  him. 

In  most  places  he  visited  from  house  to  house, 
carrying  his  mite  subscription  list,  by  which  he 
helped  distressed  preachers.  He  met  some  who 
railed  at  Methodists,  and  he  quietly  observes 
he  would  not  take  the  best  of  the  railers  unless 
they  repent  and  become  converts.  He  preached 
a  number  of  times  this  year  from  the  text,  “The 
night  is  far  spent,”  and  said  final  good-bys  to 
many,  feeling  that  the  time  was  short.  He  held 
the  Ohio  Conference  September  14  and  had  a 
conversation  with  Bishop  McKendree  at  Cin¬ 
cinnati,  telling  him  there  ought  to  be  five  Con¬ 
ferences  in  the  West,  where  great  things  were 
to  be  done  for  the  Kingdom — Ohio,  Kentucky, 
Holston,  Mississippi,  and  Missouri.  They  had  a 

232 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


delightful  communion  there  and  Asbury  went  on 
to  another  Conference  at  Lebanon  and  then  to 
the  Tennessee  Conference.  Here  he  left  the  duty 
of  stationing  the  preachers  to  his  colleague,  re¬ 
marking,  “My  eyes  fail.  I  will  resign  the  sta¬ 
tions  to  Bishop  McKendree.  I  will  take  away 
my  feet.  It  is  the  fifty-fifth  year  of  my  ministry 
and  forty -fifth  year  of  labor  in  America,”  adding, 
“My  mind  enjoys  great  peace  and  divine  consola¬ 
tion.” 

This  was  Bishop  Asbury’s  last  Conference. 
He  started  on  his  return  journey,  preaching  on 
the  way  as  he  was  able,  and  arrived  at  Columbia, 
South  Carolina,  December  first.  On  the  third 
he  preached  and  wrote:  “I  live  in  God  from 
moment  to  moment.”  On  the  fifth  he  made  his 
last  entry  in  his  Journal ,  stating,  “We  met  a 
storm  and  stopped  at  William  Baker’s,  Granby.” 
How  different  from  his  usual  way,  which  was  to 
defy  the  storm  and  press  on! 

His  purpose  now  was  to  travel  by  easy  stages 
to  Baltimore,  where  the  General  Conference  was 
to  meet  in  May.  His  traveling  companion, 
“Son”  John  Wesley  Bond,  whom  he  greatly  loved 
and  who  was  very  careful  of  him  and  exceedingly 
tender,  accompanied  him  in  a  closed  carriage, 
the  bishop  preaching  on  the  way  as  his  strength 
permitted.  They  reached  Richmond,  Virginia, 
March  24,  1816,  where  he  preached  his  last  ser- 

233 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


mon  on  that  date.  Unable  to  walk,  he  was  car¬ 
ried  into  the  church  and  to  the  pulpit,  where, 
seated  on  a  table,  he  preached  for  nearly  an  hour, 
with  gasping  intervals,  from  Romans  9.  28:  “For 
he  will  finish  the  work,  and  cut  it  short  in  right¬ 
eousness  ;  because  a  short  work  will  the  Lord  make 
upon  the  earth.”  Setting  out  from  Richmond 
they  were  compelled  to  stop  at  George  Arnold’s, 
twenty  miles  short  of  Fredericksburg,  where  he 
passed  two  days  of  pain  and  weakness.  Then 
came  Sunday.  At  eleven  o’clock  he  asked  if  it 
was  not  time  for  meeting.  The  family  assembled 
in  his  room  and  John  Wesley  Bond  conducted 
service  and  spoke  on  Revelation,  chapter  21, 
beginning,  “And  I  saw  a  new  heaven  and  a  new 
earth:  for  the  first  heaven  and  the  first  earth  were 
passed  away.”  Propped  up  in  bed  the  Bishop 
followed  the  service  with  deep  devotion.  In  the 
afternoon  when  speech  had  failed  him  and  he 
was  asked  whether  Christ  was  precious  to  him, 
he  lifted  his  hands  in  assent,  bowed  his  head  on 
his  companion’s  hand,  and  peacefully  breathed  out 
his  life,  at  four  o’clock  March  31,  1816. 

His  body  was  removed  from  the  grave  in 
Arnold’s  plot,  taken  to  Baltimore,  under  the 
direction  of  the  General  Conference,  in  May 
following,  where  funeral  services  were  held,  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  General  Conference  attending,  and 
the  body  buried  in  Eutaw  Street  Church,  whence 

234 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


it  was  removed  to  Mount  Olivet  Cemetery, 
where  rest  the  remains  of  Robert  Strawbridge, 
Jesse  Lee,  and  other  faithful  Methodists. 

Thus  ended  a  life  of  singular  devotion  and 
heroism.  For  five  and  forty  years  with  frail 
body,  quivering  in  pain  and  weakness,  he  took 
his  toilsome  way  back  and  forth  through  highway 
and  byway,  solitary  forest,  trackless  valley,  and 
lonely  mountain  trail,  from  centers  of  civilization 
to  the  vast  circumference  of  wilderness,  bearing 
good  news  to  the  weary  and  hopeless.  He  never, 
in  all  his  most  troubled  experiences,  lost  heart, 
or  faith,  or  hope;  his  message  was  ever  in  words 
of  cheer. 

No  more  fitting  words  have  been  said  of  his 
life  and  work  than  those  entered  in  the  minutes 
of  the  General  Conference  of  1816: 

When  we  count  the  thousands  throughout  this  vastly 
extensive  continent  who,  with  affectionate  veneration,  owned 
him  as  their  spiritual  father,  we  may  question  if  a  weightier 
charge  has  been  committed  to  any  man  since  the  days  of  the 
apostles;  and  when  the  records  of  his  life  shall  meet  the 
public  eye,  who  that  patiently  examines  and  candidly  decides, 
will  be  bold  enough  to  say  that  since  that  time  duties  so 
great  and  so  various  have  been  by  one  man  more  faithfully 
performed? 

We  are  told  that  he  preached  16,500  sermons, 
ordained  more  than  4,000  preachers  and  traveled 
on  horseback  and  in  carriage  270,000  miles. 

235 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


Doctor  Buckley  pays  him  this  tribute:  “So  fine 
was  his  discrimination  that  his  estimate  of  men 
was  almost  infallible,  and  such  his  self-restraint 
that  one  could  never  discern  his  thoughts  before 
he  was  disposed  to  disclose  them.”1 

Of  the  outcome  of  his  faithful  labors  may  it 
not  be  said  that  in  the  sanctuaries  built  on  the 
shores  of  time  multitudes  have  sought  and  found 
the  way  of  life,  while  unseen  hands  have  fashioned 
glorious  mansions  in  the  country  eternal  for  the 
habitation  of  a  countless  concourse  of  saints. 
Among  these  saints  this  poor,  broken,  lonely, 
homeless  man,  as  he  was  known  here,  moves  a 
bright  and  shining  soul,  greeting  his  dearest 
earthly  friends  in  happy  endless  reunion  in  the 
Great  Presence,  for  whose  cause  he  gave  himself 
so  absolutely. 

1  History  of  Methodists  in  the  United  States,  James  M.  Buckley,  pp. 
345-56. 


236 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


APPENDIX 

A  CHAPTER  OF  NUMBERS  IN  AMERICAN 

METHODISM. 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


I. 

ANNUALLY  FROM 

1770  TO  1803  AND  BY 

DECADES 

SUBSEQUENTLY 

Colored 

Years 

Preachers 

Ch 

urches  Members 

Members 

1760. . . 

.  *1 

....  25 

1770. . . 

*5 

250 

1771 .  .  . 

.  9 

*500 

1772 .  .  . 

.  *9 

750 

1773 .  .  . 

.  10 

1,160 

1774 .  .  . 

.  17 

2,073 

1775 .  .  . 

.  19 

3,148 

1776.  .  . 

.  24 

4,921 

1777.  .  . 

.  36 

....  6,958 

1778.  .  . 

.  29 

....  6*095 

1779.  .  . 

.  32 

8,577 

1780.  .  . 

.  42 

....  8,504 

1781 .  .  . 

.  54 

10,539 

1782. .  . 

.  59 

....  11,785 

1783. .  . 

.  82 

13,740 

1784.  .  . 

.  83 

14,988 

1785. .  . 

.  104 

18,000 

1786 .  .  . 

.  117 

....  20,681 

1,890 

1787.  .  . 

.  133 

....  25,842 

3,893 

1788. . . 

.  166 

....  37,354 

6,545 

1789. . . 

.  196 

....  43,262 

8,243 

1790.  .  . 

.  227 

....  57,631 

11,682 

1791.  .  . 

.  250 

....  76,153 

12,884 

1792. .  . 

.  266 

....  65,980 

13,871 

1793. . . 

.  269 

....  67,643 

16,227 

1794 .  .  . 

.  301 

....  66,608 

13,814 

1795. .  . 

.  313 

.  .  .  .  60,291 

12,170 

1796 .  .  . 

.  293 

....  56,664 

11,280 

1797 .  .  . 

.  262 

....  58,683 

12,218 

1798. . . 

.  267 

....  60,169 

12,302 

1799 .  .  . 

.  272 

....  61,351 

12,236 

1800. .  . 

. .  287 

64,894 

13,452 

*  Estimate. 


237 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


Years  Preachers 

1801  .  307 

1802  .  358 

1803  .  383 

1804  .  400 

1805  .  433 

1810 .  596 

1815 .  704 

1820 .  904 

1830 .  1,900 

1840 .  2,263 

1844  .  4,621 

1845  .  3,483 

1846  .  3,582 

1850 .  4,459 

1860 .  6,987 

1870 .  9,193 

1880 .  12,096 

1890 .  12,945 

1900 .  12,865 

1910 . 15,049 

1920 .  18,713 

1922 .  18,463 


Churches 

Members 

•  •  .  •  • 

72,874 

86,734 

104,070 

113,134 

119,945 

174,560 

211,165 

256,881 

476,153 

580,098 

1,171,356 

656,642 

644,299 

689,682 

9,754 

994,447 

13,373 

1,367,134 

17,561 

1,742,922 

22,833 

2,283,967 

27,230 

2,929,674 

30,305 

3,489,696 

29,823 

4,393,988 

29,420 

4,593,540 

Colored 

Members 

15,688 

18,659 

22,453 

23,531 

24,316 


Notes.— The  statistics  of  1760,  never  given  before,  are 
based  on  the  historic  fact,  abundantly  confirmed,  of  the 
arrival  in  New  York,  August  11,  1760,  on  the  ship  Perry, 
from  Limerick,  Ireland,  of  Philip  Embury  and  a  company  of 
twenty-four  others,  all  of  the  Established  Church  but  one, 
and  most,  if  not  all,  Methodists. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  crossed  the  million  line 
two  or  three  years  before  it  divided  in  1845,  made  up  its  loss 
by  the  separation  and  crossed  the  line  a  second  time  in  the 
seventh  decade,  the  two-million  line  in  the  ninth  decade, 
the  three  and  four-million  line  in  two  decades  of  the  present 
century,  and  had  made  half  the  distance  to  the  five  million 
line  in  1922. 

In  its  hundred  thirty-eight  years  of  organized  existence 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  multiplied  its  18,000 
membership  roll  in  1784,  more  than  two  hundred  and  fifty- 
five  times — a  record  unprecedented. 

238 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


II.  FOREIGN  MISSION  FIELDS 
Growth  in  Communicants,  1911-1921 


Date  of 

Total 

Number  of 

Total 

Number  of 

Field 

Beginning 

Commu- 

Commu- 

Work 

nicants  in 

nicants  in 

China . 

.  .  .  1847 

1911 

35,354 

1921 

86,508 

Japan  (a) . 

. . .  1873 

16,615 

19,985 

Korea . 

. . .  1885 

25,026 

India . 

.  .  .  1856 

158,001 

264,958 

Philippine  Islands  ) 
Malaysia  > . 

. . .  1885 

34,933 

65,323 

Netherlands  Indies  ) 

Africa  (inc.  North  Africa).. 

. . .  1833 

11,606 

21,320 

Latin  America(6) . 

. . .  1836 

16,919 

20,985 

Europe  (c) . 

. . .  1849 

70,855 

83,110 

Totals . 

.  352,694 

578,804 

III.  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH 

When  the  division  on  the  Plan  of  Separation  was  carried 
out  in  1845  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  had 
455,217  members.  In  1846,  when  its  first  General  Con¬ 
ference  was  held  and  more  definite  statistics  were  obtainable, 
there  were  1,519  traveling  preachers,  327,284  wdiite,  124,961 
colored  and  2,972  Indian  members,  making  a  total  of  458,050, 
not  including  itinerants.  In  1850  there  had  been  an  advance 
to  520,526.  Ten  years  later,  1860,  the  numbers  had  risen 
to  757,205,  but  the  effects  of  the  Civil  War  were  disastrous, 
the  losses  reaching  246,044,  partly  due  to  loss  of  colored 
members  and  partly  to  the  casualties  of  the  conflict. 

The  recovery  from  war  conditions  was  more  rapid  than 
could  have  been  expected  and  prosperity  soon  returned  not 
again  to  be  interrupted.  In  1920,  as  reported  to  the  Ecu¬ 
menical  Conference  of  1921,  there  were  7,664  traveling 

(а)  Representing  only  Missions  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 

(United)  Church  of  Japan. 

(б)  Including  Mexico,  Central  and  South  America. 

(c)  Germany,  Austria,  Scandinavia,  Switzerland,  France,  Spain, 
Italy,  Czecho-Slovakia,  Serbia,  Bulgaria,  etc. 

239 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


ministers,  4,701  local  preachers,  and  2,254,7 52  members, 
including  the  traveling  preachers.  The  number  of  churches 
was  17,251,  of  Sunday  schools  16,205,  and  of  scholars 
1,698,871.  In  1922  the  denomination  had  7,970  ministers, 
17,554  churches  and  2,344,503  members,  of  whom  42,659 
were  in  the  foreign  missions  in  Mexico,  South  America,  Cuba, 
Africa,  Korea  and  Japan. 

IV.  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH  OF  CANADA 

At  the  Christmas  Conference  in  Baltimore  was  a  preacher, 
James  0.  Cromwell,  from  Nova  Scotia,  who  sought  ordi¬ 
nation,  and  a  helper,  Freeborn  Garret tson,  went  back  with 
him,  both  having  been  ordained  and  both  appeared  among 
the  appointments.  Jeremiah  Lambert,  of  Antigua,  West 
Indies,  where  Doctor  Coke  had  begun,  was  also  ordained, 
and  thereafter  for  several  years  Antigua  and  Nova  Scotia 
were  on  the  list  of  appointments  and  were  counted  in  the 
statistical  report.  In  1794  Upper  Canada  was  noticed  with 
116  members  and  1,316  were  credited  to  Nova  Scotia.  Mis¬ 
sionaries  from  England  were  in  Nova  Scotia  before  Garrettson 
went  there.  Afterward  Upper  Canada  was  accepted  as  the 
sphere  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  a  consider¬ 
able  work  was  developed.  But  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  Canada  found  itself  more  or  less  hampered  in 
its  relations  to  the  church  in  the  United  States  and  asked 
and  received  in  1828  its  independence.  Later,  when  various 
Methodist  bodies  in  Canada  united  in  one  church,  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  with  its  Bishop  Carman, 
disappeared  as  a  separate  organization. 

Report  made  to  the  General  Conference,  in  September, 
1922,  by  General  Superintendent  Chown,  showed  that  the 
church  had  406,932  members,  indicating  an  increase  of  about 
19,000  during  the  quadrennium.  All  its  interests  were  in  a 
prosperous  condition. 


240 


IN  MAKING  OF  AMERICAN  METHODISM 


V.  ECUMENICAL  METHODISM 
American  and  English  Bodies  in  1920 

Sunday 


Itinerant 

Sunday 

School 

V.  American  Bodies  Ministers 

Members 

Churches 

Schools 

Scholars 

Methodist  Episcopal . 

.  20,439 

4,393,988 

29,823 

35,871 

4,414,472 

Methodist  Episcopal,  South.  . .  . 

7,664 

2,254,752 

17,251 

16,205 

1,698,871 

Methodist  of  Canada . 

2,607 

395,653 

4,603 

3,403 

393,063 

Methodist  Protestant . 

1,450 

179,500 

2,288 

1,903 

152,521 

African  Methodist  Episcopal .  .  . 

6,550 

551,776 

6,900 

6,250 

278,313 

African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion 

3,456 

458,734 

3,434 

2,092 

107,692 

Colored  Methodist  Episcopal. .  . 

2,402 

267,361 

3,285 

2,560 

170,027 

Free  Methodist . 

1,483 

37,253 

1,237 

1,124 

41,443 

Wesleyan  Methodist . 

590 

21,000 

675 

505 

21,463 

Primitive  Methodist . 

78 

9,600 

91 

98 

13,177 

Congregational  Methodist . 

500 

21,000 

352 

182 

8,785 

New  Congregational  Methodist. 

(a)  27 

(a)  1,256 

(a)  24 

(a)  27 

(a)  1,298 

Union  American  Methodist  Epis- 

copal  (Colored) . 

220 

21,016 

281 

192 

5,076 

African  Union  Methodist  Prot- 

estant  (Colored) . 

600 

20,000 

575 

66 

5,266 

Reformed  Zion  Union  Apostolic 

(Colored) . 

(a)  53 

(a)  9,500 

(a)  53 

(a)  36 

(a)  1,508 

Reformed  Methodist  Union 

Episcopal  (Colored) . 

51 

1,726 

29 

54 

1,792 

Japan  Methodist  (United  Na- 

tive)  (e)  . 

230 

22,000 

337 

583 

38,108 

British  Methodist  Episcopal 

(Colored)  ( c ) . 

(5)20 

(6)700 

(6)21 

(6)18 

Total  in  1920 . 

48,420 

8,666,815 

71,259 

71,169 

7,352,875 

Total  in  1910 . 

48,614 

7,409,736 

67,438 

68,578 

6,062,135 

Increase  for  ten  years .  .  . 

(d)194 

1,257,079 

3,821 

2,591 

1,290,740 

Sunday 

Sunday 

VI.  English  Bodies 

Ministers 

Members 

Churches 

Schools 

School 

Wesleyan  Methodists: 

Scholars 

Great  Britain . 

2,520 

483,763 

8,533 

7,295 

849,861 

Ireland . 

248 

27,245 

545 

327 

22,188 

Foreign  Missions . 

655 

217,096 

3,740 

2,454 

146,054 

French  Conference . 

28 

1,502 

109 

37 

1,127 

South  African  Conference. .  .  . 

270 

145,153 

4,285 

914 

41,363 

Primitive  Methodists . 

1,095 

206,372 

4,721 

4,009 

424,452 

United  Methodist  Church . 

736 

183,789 

3,083 

2,183 

272,191 

Wesleyan  Reform  Union . 

16 

8,506 

196 

183 

21,978 

Independent  Methodist  Ch’s . . . 

380 

9,185 

159 

159 

25,172 

Australasian  Methodist  Church. 

1,102 

179,215 

4,450 

4,000 

210,000 

New  Zealand  Methodist  Church. 

181 

25,180 

468 

422 

29,035 

Total  in  1920 . 

7,231 

1,487,006 

30,289 

21,983 

2,043,421 

Total  in  1910 . 

7,194 

1,358,880 

32,059 

21,546 

2,211,674 

Increase  for  ten  years .  .  . 

37 

128,126 

{d)  1,770 

437 

(d)  168,253 

(a)  U.  S.  Census  of  1916.  (6)  Returns  of  1910.  (c)  Canada.  ( d )  Decrease, 
(e)  Native  Church  organized  of  missions  of  Methodist  Episcopal,  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal,  South,  and  Canada  Methodist  Churches. 


241 


FRANCIS  ASBURY 


VI.  SUMMARY  OF  AMERICAN  AND  ENGLISH 

BODIES 


Itinerant 

Ministers 

American  Bodies. .  48,420 
English  Bodies .  .  .  7,231 

Members 

8,666,815 

1,487,006 

Churches 

71,259 

30,289 

Sunday 

Schools 

71,169 

21,983 

Sunday 

School 

Scholars 

7,352,875 

2,043,421 

Total  in  1920. .  .  55,651 
Total  in  1910. .  .  55,808 

10,153,821 

8,768,616 

101,548 

99,497 

93,152 

90,124 

9,396,296 

8,273,809 

Increase  for 

ten  years.  .  (d)157 

1,385,205 

2,051 

3,028 

1,122,487 

VII.  ESTIMATE  OF  METHODIST  POPULATION 

American  Bodies,  members,  probationers,  and  adherents..  30,333,852 
English  Bodies,  members,  probationers,  and  adherents ....  7,435,030 

Total .  37,768,882 

Note. — The  estimate  for  the  English  bodies  is  based  on  the  ratio  of 
four  adherents  to  each  member  and  probationer  and  for  the  American 
bodies  on  2^  to  each.  Accordingly  the  multipliers  are  5  and  33d? 
respectively. 


INDEX 


Abstainers,  total,  Methodist  min¬ 
isters  required  to  be,  195 
Adams,  President,  198 
African  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  223 

African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion 
Church,  224 

African  Union  Methodist  Protes¬ 
tant  Church,  the,  225 
Albright,  Jacob,  210 
Alexander,  Gross,  213 
America,  coming  of  Francis 
Asbury  to,  9;  a  land  of  need 
and  promise,  12;  conditions  in 
not  favorable  to  unity,  29 
American  Bible  Society,  144 
“American”  Methodists,  49 
Annesley,  Samuel,  64 
Annual  Conference,  An,  28 
Appointments,  carefully  consid¬ 
ered,  162 

Armstrong,  James,  incident  con¬ 
cerning,  71 

“Assistant,”  title  given  Asbury,  9 
Articles  of  Religion,  Thirty-nine, 
Wesley’s  changes  in,  136 
Asbury,  Elizabeth,  15;  conversion 
of,  20;  tribute  of  Francis  As¬ 
bury  to,  20;  death  of,  21 
Asbury,  Francis,  why  a  monument 
to,  9;  coming  of  to  America,  9; 
unpromising  as  a  missionary, 
10;  a  local  preacher  in  England, 
10;  appraisal  of  himself,  10;  not 
robust  in  health,  10;  acclaimed 
as  father  and  founder  by  hosts 
of  Methodism,  10;  reliance  of  on 
God’s  leadership,  11;  note  in 
Journal  of,  11;  “Apostle  to  the 
Americans,”  12;  patience  of,  12; 
birth  and  early  training  of,  13; 
guided  by  Providence,  14;  born 
of  pure  English  blood,  14; 
date  of  birth  of,  15;  boyhood 
of,  15;  trade  learned  by,  16; 
habit  of  prayer  formed  by. 


16;  distinguished  preachers 
heard  by,  17;  sent  to  Wednes- 
bury,  17;  becomes  a  local 
preacher,  17;  offering  of  him¬ 
self  as  a  missionary,  18;  without 
funds  when  ready  to  sail,  19; 
influence  of  mother  in  life  of, 
20;  his  father  and  mother  never 
forgotten  by,  21;  no  thought  of 
marriage  entertained  by  him  in 
America,  22;  influence  of  as  a 
single  man,  23;  attacks  made 
upon,  24;  praise  offensive  to,  24; 
sentiment  expressed  in  his  old 
age,  25;  zeal  of  for  discipline,  30; 
grieved  by  worldliness  of  the 
people,  31;  objection  of  to  bod¬ 
ily  adornment,  32;  dislike  of  for 
church  bells,  33;  quoted  regard¬ 
ing  steeples  and  pews,  34;  as  an 
itinerant  did  not  baptize,  45; 
falsely  charged  with  “putting  on 
airs,”  47;  work  of  in  Baltimore, 
49;  circuit  of  including  Balti¬ 
more,  50;  loyalty  of  to  John 
Wesley,  52;  elected  superin¬ 
tendent,  52;  effort  to  prevent 
him  from  preaching,  63;  great¬ 
est  itinerant  in  American  Meth¬ 
odism,  73;  circuit  of  twenty- 
four  preaching  places  chosen  by, 
75;  sacrificing  nature  of,  80; 
interest  of  in  church  property, 
83;  methods  of  with  preachers 
not  dictatorial,  87;  association 
of  with  Presbyterian  ministers, 
99;  daily  life  of,  103;  surrendered 
to  sickness  only  under  compul¬ 
sion,  105;  time  of  largely  given 
to  journeys,  106;  quoted  relative 
to  his  travels,  107;  his  methods 
of  travel,  108;  quoted,  112;  fast¬ 
ings  of,  113;  as  a  preacher,  114; 
the  only  man  equal  to  the 
situation  in  America,  117;  his 
recourse  to  prayer,  118;  a  man 


243 


INDEX 


of  one  book,  119;  timidity  of, 
120;  a  man  of  indomitable  will, 
122;  a  preacher  of  apostolic 
power,  125;  texts  used  by,  126; 
continuous  service  of,  129;  inci¬ 
dent  concerning,  133;  quoted  as 
to  an  Episcopal  Church,  133; 
ordained  deacon,  elder  and 
bishop,  134;  at  Christmas  Con¬ 
ference,  138;  as  a  projector  of 
church  institutions,  141;  various 
services  of  in  organizing,  144; 
missionary  work  of,  145;  Tract 
Society  anticipated  by,  156; 
administrative  and  executive 
ability  of,  158;  able  to  govern 
himself,  159;  his  sympathy  for 
men  under  his  jurisdiction,  160; 
mistakenly  charged  with  pride 
and  ambition,  161;  character  of, 
163;  accustomed  to  directing 
men,  167;  an  example  of  his 
good  sense,  171;  his  belief  in 
future  of  Methodism,  172;  love 
of  for  England,  189;  a  friend  of 
law  and  order,  194;  opposed 
to  slavery,  204,  214;  last  year 
of,  227 ;  last  trip  of  to  Eastern 
and  Western  sections,  228;  last 
Conference  held  by,  233;  last 
service  before  death  of,  234; 
death  of,  234;  tribute  paid  him 
in  Conference  Minutes,  235; 
estimate  of  wTork  of,  236 

Asbury,  Joseph,  15 

Atkinson,  John,  quoted,  90,  91, 
134,  166 

Bacon,  Leonard  Woolsey,  quoted, 
180 

Baltimore,  49;  chaos  there  changed 
to  order,  50 

Baltimore  Conference  held  by 
Asbury,  229 

Bangs,  Nathan,  quoted,  123; 
cited,  150 

Baptism,  Baptist  doctrine  of,  181 

Baptist  Church,  first  in  colonies, 
100 

Baptist  Missionary  Society,  143 


Baptists,  expert  controversialists, 
69;  membership  of  in  1812,  182 
Barratt,  Judge,  referred  to,  187 
Bassett,  Senator,  187,  199 
Benson,  Joseph,  quoted,  78 
Bethel  Academy,  174 
Bible,  not  known  in  original 
tongue  by  Asbury,  9;  an  indis¬ 
pensable  book  to  early  Method¬ 
ist  itinerants,  153;  reading  of 
strongly  urged  by  Methodism, 
196 

“Bishop,”  note  relative  to  term, 
137;  title  defended  by  Wesley, 
138 

Bishops,  itinerant,  140 
Board  of  Conference  Claimants, 
144 

Board  of  Education,  188 
Board  of  Education  for  Negroes, 
144 

Boardman,  Richard,  presence  of 
in  America,  9;  referred  to,  18, 
29;  compensation  made  to,  37; 
cited  by  John  Wesley  in  his 
Journal ,  44;  concession  made  by 
on  question  of  right  to  celebrate 
communion,  48 
Board  of  Sunday  Schools,  144 
Boehm,  Henry,  quoted,  125 
Bond,  John  Wesley,  233 
Bond,  Thomas  E.,  57 
Book  Concern,  The,  144,  156,  172 
Books,  list  of  in  early  Conference 
Minutes,  172 
Bowman,  Elisha,  147 
Briggs,  Charles  A.,  referred  to,  99 
Bristol  Conference,  the,  18 
Buckley,  Dr.  J.  M.,  quoted,  46,  49, 
50,  138,  151,  236 
Burke,  William,  147 

Calvinistic  Methodism,  13 
Campbell,  Alexander,  debate  en¬ 
gaged  in  by,  69 

Cartwright,  Peter,  challenge  is¬ 
sued  by,  70 

Centenary  of  American  Method¬ 
ism,  56 

Charles  II,  201 
Charleston,  John,  152 


244 


INDEX 


Chauncy,  Charles,  cited,  182 
Children,  gathered  together  on 
Sunday  for  instruction,  152 
Christmas  Conference,  the,  52; 

preachers  prominent  in,  138 
Church,  distinguished  families 
brought  into  by  Asbury,  34 
Church  adherents  in  America  in 
1761,  101 

Church  buildings,  early,  33;  costly 
ones  not  wanted,  35 
Church  Missionary  Society,  143 
Church  of  England,  95 
Civil  War,  the,  217,  220 
Class  meetings,  26,  39;  encouraged 
by  Asbury,  40;  forerunnner  of 
prayer  meeting,  40 
Clay,  Henry,  203 
Coke,  Thomas,  qualities  of  as  an 
organizer,  13;  arrival  of  in 
America,  45;  ordained  as  super¬ 
intendent  by  Wesley,  52;quoted, 
62;  conference  of  with  Asbury, 
130;  proposition  to  consecrate 
by  Wesley,  131;  referred  to,  134, 
138;  missionary  impulse  of,  142; 
quoted  concerning  Asbury,  166; 
proposal  by  to  Bishop  White, 
171;  conference  of  with  George 
Washington,  191;  slavery  con¬ 
demned  by,  214 

Cokesbury  College,  174;  inaugura¬ 
tion  of,  188;  founded  by  Coke, 
197 

College  men  only  for  early  minis¬ 
try,  speculation  relative  to,  179 
Colonial  Church,  one  of  the  weak¬ 
nesses  of,  95 

Colonies,  American,  conditions  in 
learned  of  by  Asbury,  18;  first 
need  of  people  in,  66;  vices  in, 
192,  193 

Colonists,  English,  first  act  of  on 
landing,  94 

Colored  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  the,  224 
Commission  on  Priority,  48 
Conference  of  preachers,  first 
American,  46 

Congregationalism  early  in  Amer¬ 
ica,  180 


Congregational  Methodist 
Church,  the,  222 
Cooper,  Ezekiel,  quoted,  59,  166 
Council,  members  of  selected  by 
Asbury,  170 
Creighton,  James,  131 
Cromwell,  Oliver,  201 
Crook,  William,  conclusion 
reached  by  concerning  Straw- 
bridge,  58 

Cumberland  Presbyterians,  179 
Debates,  69,  70 

Debts,  ministers  not  to  contract, 
195 

Declaration  of  Independence,  189 
Delegation,  English,  arrival  of  in 
New  York,  132 
Denominations  in  America,  92 
Discipline,  first,  32;  adopted  by 
General  Conference,  135 
Division  of  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  202 

Divisions  of  Methodism,  206; 

number  of,  208 
Doctrinal  teaching,  61 
Dromgoole,  Edward,  letter  writ¬ 
ten  by,  134 

Dunster,  President,  cited,  182 
Du  Bose,  Bishop  H.  M.,  quoted, 
190 

Duel,  the,  condemnation  of,  104 
Dunkards,  the,  185 

Economy,  good  reasons  for,  32 
Ecumenical  Methodism,  241 
Ecumenical  Methodist  Confer¬ 
ence,  209  “  •' 

Education,  little  possessed  by  As¬ 
bury,  9;  attitude  of  Asbury 
toward,  174 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  mark  of,  99 
Embury,  Philip,  referred  to,  39, 
42,  98;  carpenter  work  done  by, 
43;  in  New  York,  53;  arrival 
of,  57 

England,  new  movement  begun 
in,  11 

Episcopal  Church,  left  prostrate 
in  America  by  the  Revolution, 
181 


245 


INDEX 


Eulogies  of  dead  in  funeral  ser¬ 
mons,  82 

Evangelical  Association,  210 
Evangelism,  what  it  must  be,  66 
Expense  account,  interesting,  37 

Faulkland,  Lord,  epigram  orig¬ 
inated  by,  35 

Fellowship,  Christian,  Asbury’s 
idea  of,  231 
Field  preaching,  27 
Findlay,  G.  G.,  quoted,  141 
Finley,  J.  B.,  incident  told  by,  87 
Finley,  James  B.,  cited,  147 
Free  Methodist  Church  of  North 
America,  the,  222 
Friends,  the,  view  of  relative  to 
sacraments,  100 

Garrettson,  Freeborn,  his  first 
appointment,  57;  quoted,  118; 
referred  to,  128,  133;  character 
of,  138 

“General  Assistant,”  Asbury  des¬ 
ignated  as,  9 

General  Conference,  first  meeting 
of,  36;  notice  sent  out  calling 
same,  133;  date  of  adjournment, 
138;  opening  date,  139;  minis¬ 
terial  and  lay  membership  of, 
140 

General  Rules,  provision  in  against 
costly  apparel,  31 
Gibson,  Tobias,  147 
Gospel,  support  of  “by  law,”  97 
Goucher,  J.  F.,  quoted,  58 
Governing  capacity  of  Asbury,  158 
Gowns,  elders  appearing  in,  135 

Handsworth,  home  of  Asbury  in, 
23 

Harding,  President,  quoted,  201 
Historical  Statement,  excerpt 
from,  56;  cited,  58 
Holland,  98 

Hollingsworth,  Francis,  231 
Hood,  Bishop,  J.  W.,  quoted,  212, 
213 

Hosier,  Harry,  133 
Humility,  an  example  of  Asbury’s, 
161 


Hunt,  Chaplain,  94 
Hymn  book,  compiled  by  Asbury, 
154 

Hymns,  more  used  by  English 
than  American  Methodists,  154 

Indians,  missionary  sent  to,  146; 

work  among,  150 
Infidelity  in  France  and  Ger¬ 
many,  202 

Intolerance,  spirit  of,  97 
Ireland,  first  comers  from,  43 
Israel  in  Egvpt,  emancipation  of, 
14 

Itinerancy,  27;  how  established,  72 
Itinerants,  duty  imposed  upon,  80; 
long  circuits  of  in  West,  146 

Jamestown,  settlement  of,  94 
Jefferson,  Thomas,  198 
John  Street  Church,  New  York, 
35;  first  building  described,  36; 
“Old  Book”  of,  37;  official  held 
by  Asbury  in,  38 

Kentucky,  primitive  conditions  in, 
145 

Kindergarten,  use  of  to-day,  153 
King,  John,  evangelistic  work  of, 
44,  45 

Lady  Huntington  Connection,  13 
Lakin,  Benjamin,  147 
Laymen  in  Asbury’s  time,  176;  in 
denominations  other  than  Meth¬ 
odist,  177 

Lee,  Jesse,  quoted,  46;  first  his¬ 
torian  of  Methodism, 57;  quoted, 
171 

Light  Street  Church,  Baltimore, 
36 

Liquor  Traffic,  the,  85 
Literature,  denominational,  sale 
of,  155 

London  Missionary  Society,  143 
Lord’s  Supper,  people  long  de¬ 
prived  of,  136 

Love  feasts,  27;  Asbury's  view  re¬ 
garding  admission  to,  30;  tickets 
issued  to,  32 

Luther,  Martin,  courage  of,  2G3 


246 


INDEX 


Manhattan  Island,  settlement  of, 
97;  original  price  of,  98 
Marsden,  Joshua,  168 
Maxfield,  Thomas,  142 
Mayflower,  Pilgrims  of  the,  96 
Maynard,  Henry,  quoted,  124 
McCaine,  Alexander,  218 
McKendree,  Bishop,  152 
Medical  treatment  unskillful,  104 
“Meeting,”  the  word,  28 
Membership  at  time  of  Christmas 
Conference,  139 

Mennonite  body,  the,  against 
slavery,  214 

Methodism  in  the  formative  stage, 
26;  various  features  of,  26-29; 
Asbury’s  criticism  of,  33;  not  to 
be  known  as  a  rich  man’s 
church,  35;  age  of  in  America, 
42;  wide  expansion  of,  42;  from 
whom  descended  in  America, 
43;  peculiar  doctrines  of,  67;  a 
world  religion,  141;  influence  of 
on  the  national  life,  189 
Methodist  Churches,  list  of,  217, 
225 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  di¬ 
vided  by  slavery  question,  85; 
in  full  commission,  139;  super¬ 
visory  method  in,  140;  great 
Sunday-school  work  of,  150; 
membership  of  in  1922,  150; 
division  of,  202;  statement  con¬ 
cerning,  217 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  sentiment  for  reunion  in, 
217 

Methodist  Missionary’  Society, 
144,  150 

“Methodist  preaching”  in  Mary¬ 
land,  50;  definite  on  subject  of 
future  punishment,  64 
Methodist  Protestant  Church,  218 
Methodists,  long  regarded  as  plain 
people,  31;  suffered  from  Wes¬ 
ley’s  early  opposition  to  cause 
of  colonies,  190 
Milton,  John,  206 
Ministerial  plan,  tribute  to,  86 
Ministers,  distressed,  aid  to,  148; 
of  other  denominations,  174 


Mite  subscriptions,  carried  by  As- 
bury,  161;  referred  to,  232 
Money  in  circulation  limited,  33 
Moore,  Henry,  quoted,  62 
“Mr.,”  objection  to  title  of,  47 

Negro,  Louisiana,  opinion  ex¬ 
pressed  by,  135 
Negroes,  increase  of,  212 
New  Congregational  Methodist 
Church,  223 

New  England  Conference  held  by 
Asbury,  230 

New  World,  enterprise  of  coloniz¬ 
ing  the,  94 

Newman,  Albert  Henry,  quoted, 
183,  184 

Obligation  to  obey  John  Wesley 
rescinded,  170 

Ohio,  visits  in  by  Asbury,  149 
Ohio  Conference,  held  by  Asbury, 

232 

O’ Kelly,  leader  of  first  secession, 
138;  attitude  of  Asbury  toward, 
169;  protest  voiced  by,  207 
Ordinations  of  preachers  as  dea¬ 
cons,  134 

Organizing  Conference,  the,  130 
Otterbein,  Philip,  referred  to,  121, 
134 

Oxford  University,  preparation  for 
English  Methodism  made  in,  13 

Peter,  the  apostle,  qualities  of,  176 
Petherington,  Coke  driven  from, 
142 

Philadelphia,  arrival  of  Asbury  in, 
9;  church  building  bought  in, 
33;  action  of  preachers  at,  46 
Philadelphia  Conference  desig¬ 
nated  as  British  Wesleyan  Con¬ 
ference,  48 

Pickering,  George,  referred  to,  97 
Pierce,  Dr.  Lovick,  220 
Pilmoor,  in  America  before  As¬ 
bury,  9;  referred  to,  18,  29;  cited 
by  John  Wesley,  in  his  Journal, 
44;  cited,  49 
Plan  of  Separation,  220 


247 


INDEX 


Population,  estimate  of  Method¬ 
ist,  242 

Prayer,  incident  relative  to.  111 
Prayer  meeting,  origin  of,  40 
Preachers,  American,  trained  in 
school  of  experience,  65;  in¬ 
crease  of,  78;  reports  made  by, 
79;  not  always  fully  paid,  80; 
examination  of  characters  of,  81; 
statistics  concerning,  81;  wives 
of,  83;  marriages  of,  84;  location 
of,  88;  never  stationed  by  As- 
bury  through  enmity,  162 
Preachers,  English,  return  of  to 
mother  country,  51;  super¬ 
annuated,  funds  for,  157 
Predestination,  book  against,  67 
Presbyterian  Church,  learned  min¬ 
istry  possessed  by,  178 
Presbyterians,  admired  by  As- 
bury,  69;  facts  concerning,  99 
Presiding  elders,  140 
Press,  periodical,  Asbury’s  custom 
previous  to  establishment  of,  41; 
state  of  country  during  infancy 
of,  197 

Press,  the,  importance  of  in  Meth¬ 
odism,  155 

Primitive  Baptists,  185 
Primitive  Methodist  Church,  the, 
221 

Princeton,  not  opposed  by  As- 
bury,  175 

Priority,  question  of,  53-55;  ruling 
of  General  Conference  of  1860 
regarding,  56;  statement  about, 
60 

Property  of  church,  matter  of,  83 
Public  sentiment,  evils  tolerated 
by,  204 

Puritans,  the,  96 
Putnam,  Colonel,  200 

Quakers,  trials  of,  100;  against 
slavery,  214 
“Quarterage,”  34 
Quarterly  Conference,  history  of 
not  given,  28 

Quarterly  Meeting  Conferences, 
28 


Quarterly  Meetings,  27;  intro¬ 
duced  by  Asbury  among  Amer¬ 
ican  societies,  28. 

Race  question,  the,  211 
Raikes,  Robert,  151 
Rankin,  Thomas,  offense  given  by, 
51;  cited,  76 

Reformation,  the  Protestant,  201 
Reformed  Methodist  Union  Epis¬ 
copal  Church,  226 
Reformed  Zion  Union  Apostolic 
Church,  the,  225 

Religion  as  a  reformatory  power, 
195 

Religious  liberty  championed  by 
Friends  and  Baptists,  101 
Republican  Methodists,  207 
Reunion,  sentiment  for,  217 
“Rev.,”  objection  to  title,  47 
Revivals,  first  decade  a  period  of 
widespread,  183;  fruits  of,  186 
Revolutionary  War,  close  of,  ef¬ 
fect  on  ecclesiastical  ties,  130 
Rice,  Dr.  E.  W.,  quoted,  151 
Rice,  Nathan  L.,  debate  of  with 
Alexander  Campbell,  69 
Ridpath,  John  Clark,  213 
Roman  Catholics,  92,  93 
Roosevelt,  Theodore,  quoted,  200 

Sacraments,  disagreement  con¬ 
cerning,  50,  51;  none  until  or¬ 
dained  ministry  was  instituted, 
176 

Salary  of  a  preacher,  pitifully 
small,  148 
Sams  Creek,  43 
Schism,  Asbury’s  idea  of,  207 
Schools,  free,  none  open,  153 
Seabury,  Samuel,  consecration  of, 
96 

Secession  of  the  South,  202 
Sermons  and  Notes,  Wesley’s,  im¬ 
portance  of  to  itinerants,  153 
Shadford,  George,  76,  158 
Shinn,  Asa,  218 

Simplicity,  the  order  of  the  times, 
34 

Singing,  payment  for  instruction 
in,  37 


248 


INDEX 


Slavery,  84,  85,  202,  211,  213,  214, 
216,  217 

Slaves,  petition  for  emancipation 
of  in  Virginia,  211 
Snetken,  Nicholas,  quoted,  90; 
discourse  by  most  effective,  176; 
referred  to,  218 

Societies,  26;  widely  separated,  29; 
church  edifices  erected  by,  33; 
“churches”  substituted  for  the 
word,  47 

“Society  for  the  Establishment  of 
Missions  Among  the  Heathen,” 
143 

Southwest,  the,  new  territory,  146 
Spraggs,  Samuel,  service  of,  89 
States,  non-slave-holding,  203,  215 
Stations,  difficulties  regarding, 
163 

Statistics,  238-240 
Stevens,  Abel,  quoted,  28,  156 
Strawbridge,  Robert,  28;  Quar¬ 
terly  Meetings  established  in 
Maryland  by,  30;  referred  to, 
39,  42,  53;  a  carpenter,  43; 
rural  work  of,  45;  stand  taken 
by  regarding  his  right  to  bap¬ 
tize,  48;  name  of  in  Minutes,  49; 
view  of  regarding  ordinances, 
50;  no  record  of  arrival  of  in 
America,  57;  data  relative  to, 
58;  location  of,  88;  in  conflict 
with  Asbury,  169 
Strickland,  William  P.,  quoted, 
117,  143 

Sunday  school,  first  Methodist, 
151;  subject  discussed  by  Con¬ 
ference  in  1790,  152;  subjects 
taught  in,  153 

“Superintendent,”  first  used  in 
Discipline,  47;  word  changed  to 
“bishop,”  47;  note  relative  to, 
137 

Superiority  assumed  by  some  de¬ 
nominational  ministers  to  Meth¬ 
odist  itinerants,  175 
Sweet,  William  Warren,  quoted, 
70,  147,  148 

Taylor,  Thomas,  arrival  of  in  New 
York,  44 


Tennent,  Gilbert,  cited,  126;  ser¬ 
mon  by  cause  of  much  discus¬ 
sion,  177 

Tiffany,  Charles  Comfort,  quoted, 
94 

Tiffin,  Governor,  referred  to,  187 
Time  limit,  difficulty  of  main¬ 
taining,  88 

Tipple,  Ezra  Squier,  quoted,  68, 
148,  168,  169,  172,  207 
Tract  Society,  organization  of,  156 
Travis,  Joseph,  quoted,  124 
Treaty  of  Peace,  130,  229 

Union  American  Methodist  Epis¬ 
copal  Church,  225 
United  Brethren  in  Christ,  209 
United  States,  moral  condition  of 
in  1735-45,  191 

Vasey,  Thomas,  arrival  of  in 
America,  45;  ordained  a  Pres¬ 
byter  by  Wesley,  52;  referred 
to,  134,  138 

War,  Indian,  condition  of  things 
at  end  of,  196 

War  of  Independence,  effect  of  on 
ministry,  95 

Ware,  Thomas,  quoted,  123 
Washington,  George,  conference  of 
Asbury  with,  191,  211 
Watters,  William,  referred  to,  49; 
first  native-born  itinerant,  57, 
138 

Webb,  Captain,  referred  to,  18, 
29,  44,  49 

Welsh  Calvinistic  body,  the,  13 
Wesley,  Charles,  home  and  uni¬ 
versity  training  of,  13 
Wesley,  John,  Asbury  appointed 
missionary  to  America  by,  9; 
how  fitted  for  his  great  work, 
13;  an  accuser  of  Asbury,  24; 
system  in  England  developed 
by,  26;  instructions  given  by  to 
missionaries,  29;  connection 
with  remains  unbroken,  51; 
episcopal  powers  assumed  by, 
52;  letter  written  by,  61-62; 
criticized  by  Whitefield,  67;  not 


249 


INDEX 


a  natural  orator,  115;  moral 
powers  of  immense,  116;  be¬ 
lieved  presbyters  and  bishops 
were  of  same  order,  131;  excerpt 
from  letter  by,  132;  authority 
of  acknowledged,  135;  Method¬ 
ist  preachers  sent  to  America 
by,  144;  school  held  on  Sunday 
by,  151;  opposed  to  slavery,  213 
Wesleyan  Church  of  England,  in¬ 
junction  of  to  preachers,  187 
Wesleyan  Conference,  Minutes  of, 
46 

Wesleyan  Methodist  Connection, 
of  America,  219 
Wesleyan  Revival,  191,  202 
West,  the,  rush  of  people  to,  146 
West  Bromwich  Church,  17 
West  India  Company  of  Amster¬ 
dam,  98 

West  Indies,  Coke’s  visit  to,  143 


Whatcoat,  arrival  of  in  America, 
45;  ordained  a  presbyter  by 
Wesley,  52;  communion  cup 
passed  by,  133;  referred  to,  134, 
138;  elected  bishop,  171 
Whedon,  Daniel  D.,  68 
White,  Bishop,  reference  to,  171 
White,  Dr.  Edward,  200 
White,  Judge  Thomas,  referred  to, 
187,  200 

WThitefield,  George,  large  hearing 
of  in  New  World,  13;  sermons 
of  read  by  Asbury,  17;  great¬ 
est  preacher  Methodism  has  pro¬ 
duced,  114;  death  of,  115;  instru¬ 
mental  in  slavery  being  intro¬ 
duced  into  Georgia,  213 
Williams,  Robert,  successful  work 
of,  44,  45;  cited,  49,  155 
Williams,  Roger,  101,  182 

Yale,  not  opposed  by  Asbury,  175 


250 


Date  Due 


■ 


'  !'  i 


•  ..  -  •  < 


«  > 

r1' 


